125 F. Supp. 3d 697
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Plaintiff Robert Fletcher (Canadian citizen) owns a painting he believes was painted in the mid-1970s by artist Peter Doig; he consigned it to Chicago-based Bartlow Gallery for potential auction in Chicago.
- Bartlow contacted Doig (through dealer Gordon VeneKlasen and counsel Dontzin Law Firm) seeking authentication; VeneKlasen and the Dontzin Defendants denied Doig’s authorship in written communications and Dontzin’s letter threatened legal action if the painting were attributed to Doig.
- Leslie Hindman Auctioneers (Chicago) received a Dontzin letter disclaiming Doig’s authorship and declined to auction the Work, which Plaintiffs allege caused a multi‑million‑dollar lost opportunity.
- Plaintiffs sued Doig, VeneKlasen, and the Dontzin Defendants for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and sought a declaratory judgment permitting attribution to Doig.
- Doig moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, forum non conveniens in favor of Ontario; VeneKlasen and the Dontzin Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and raised a 12(b)(6) defense.
- The court (1) denied Doig’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion and rejected his forum non conveniens argument, finding specific jurisdiction in Illinois based on agent‑imputed contacts and Calder/Tamburo analysis; and (2) dismissed VeneKlasen and the Dontzin Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction under Illinois’s fiduciary‑shield doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois has specific personal jurisdiction over Doig | Doig, through his agents, purposefully directed tortious communications to Illinois that caused the auction cancellation | Doig had no direct contacts with Illinois; agent contacts shouldn’t impute jurisdiction; alternatively, forum non conveniens favors Ontario | Yes. Jurisdiction over Doig is proper: agent actions imputed, Calder/Tamburo factors met, and exercise of jurisdiction is fair; forum non conveniens denied |
| Whether Illinois has personal jurisdiction over VeneKlasen and the Dontzin Defendants | Plaintiffs: agents acted with discretion and caused Illinois injury, so they can be sued here | Defendants: their Illinois contacts were solely as agents for Doig (fiduciary shield) and not for personal benefit | No. Claims against them dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Illinois fiduciary‑shield doctrine |
| Whether the Dontzin/Hindman letter alone supports jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: the letter (and its consequences) was part of targeted tortious conduct aimed at Illinois | Defendants: cease‑and‑desist letters alone do not establish jurisdiction | Court: conduct went beyond a mere cease‑and‑desist and, together with other agent communications, supported jurisdiction over Doig |
| Whether forum non conveniens favors Ontario | Doig: key evidence and witnesses are in Canada; Ontario is adequate and more convenient | Plaintiffs: Illinois is home forum for one plaintiff (Bartlow), evidence can be obtained via letters rogatory, and public/private factors are neutral or favor Illinois | No. Private and public interest factors do not strongly favor dismissal; Illinois forum retained |
Key Cases Cited
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2012) (Calder/Tamburo analysis for purposeful‑direction in intentional‑tort cases)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (three‑part Calder test for express aiming, effects, and intentional conduct)
- Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (minimum‑contacts framework and due‑process limits)
- Northern Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2014) (prima facie burden for personal jurisdiction on written submissions)
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) (targeting a forum via intermediary supports jurisdiction)
- Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 38 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 1994) (agency imputes contacts; fiduciary‑shield discussion)
- Rollins v. Ellwood, 141 Ill.2d 244 (Ill. 1990) (Illinois fiduciary‑shield doctrine — no jurisdiction where agent acted solely for principal)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (forum non conveniens threshold and standards)