Cardenas Marketing Network v. Pabon
972 N.E.2d 680
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Cardenas Marketing (Florida corp.) sues Evaristo Pabon (Connecticut) for breach of contract and account stated related to co-promotion of events.
- Oral agreements in 2006 and 2007; some written contracts exist for certain events, none for all events, including a Chicago event.
- Disputed forum selection clause in some contracts specifying Illinois law and Chicago venue; not all events had such written contracts.
- Plaintiff attached contracts for Connecticut and Washington, D.C. events; Mohegan Sun Connecticut event involved in amended counts.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for forum non conveniens; trial court denied, later reversed on appeal.
- Record shows at least one Illinois event; however, damages and credits are disputed as to whether a single overarching contract or multiple independent contracts governed the actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois has specific jurisdiction over Pabon. | Plaintiff asserts 2-209(a)(7) based on Illinois-connected performances. | No minimum contacts; no Illinois-forged contract with Pabon individually; no Illinois forum connection. | No specific jurisdiction; contract performance in Illinois insufficient to establish arising from Illinois contract. |
| Whether Illinois has general jurisdiction over Pabon. | Not asserted; but general jurisdiction argued via doing-business standard. | Defendant did not do business in Illinois; no continuous presence. | Illinois lacks general jurisdiction over Pabon. |
| Whether forum non conveniens should have been granted given connections outside Illinois. | Forum selection clauses and Illinois events justify Illinois forum. | No substantial Illinois connection; enforceability of forum clause not applicable to missing contracts. | Not reached due to lack of personal jurisdiction; reversed on jurisdiction grounds. |
| Whether defendant forfeited jurisdiction objections under 2-301. | Written forum clauses and 2-301 waiver arguments. | Objection filed before responsive pleading; waiver did not occur. | Defendant did not forfeit jurisdiction challenge; waiver not applicable. |
| Whether the contract-based forum clause applies to all events. | Forum clause controls where contracts exist. | Clauses apply only to specific written contracts; not all events. | Forum clauses not extended to events lacking written contracts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roiser v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 367 Ill. App. 3d 559 (2006) (de novo review of jurisdictional questions when based on documentary evidence)
- Knaus v. Guidry, 389 Ill. App. 3d 804 (2009) (framework for evaluating supplemental jurisdictional evidence)
- Isringhausen v. Prime Contractors & Associates, Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (2008) (factors for assessing availing benefits of Illinois law in contract formation)
- Bolger v. Nautica International, Inc., 369 Ill. App. 3d 947 (2007) (considerations for minimum contacts and contract formation location)
- KSAC Corp. v. Recycle Free, Inc., 364 Ill. App. 3d 593 (2006) (section 2-301 waiver provisions post-2000 amendments)
- Larochelle v. Allamian, 361 Ill. App. 3d 217 (2005) (pre-2000 waiver concept; special appearance distinctions)
- Rokeby-Johnson v. Derek Bryant Insurance Brokers, Ltd., 230 Ill. App. 3d 308 (1992) (illustrates factors for jurisdictional analysis)