2021 IL App (1st) 210032
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff Pattie A. Harding alleges injury from a Cordis OptEase inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implanted in Illinois; imaging showed migration, fracture, and cardiac lodging of a filter fragment.
- Confluent Medical Technologies (Confluent) custom-manufactured the nitinol filter component to Cordis’s specifications, shipped components to Juarez, and did not control final distribution; it knew Cordis sold the filters in the United States but not which states.
- Confluent also sold other raw nitinol and nitinol components directly to Illinois customers (over $2 million in Illinois sales 2011–2017); two Illinois customers accounted for ~59% of Confluent’s known Illinois nitinol sales and used products for medical devices.
- Confluent moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting affidavits that (1) it did not market or sell the OptEase in Illinois, (2) its sales in Illinois were a de minimis portion of total sales, and (3) Cordis controlled final distribution.
- The trial court denied the motion, relying on Russell v. SNFA and finding that Cordis operated as a distributor for Confluent’s custom part and that Confluent’s direct Illinois nitinol sales supplied the required “something more.” Confluent appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific personal jurisdiction — stream‑of‑commerce | Harding: Confluent purposefully directed activities to Illinois by custom-making a component integral to the OptEase filter that reached Illinois through Cordis and by selling nitinol directly in Illinois. | Confluent: Only sold components to Cordis, lacked knowledge that filters reached Illinois, had minimal Illinois sales, and did not control distribution. | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists — Cordis functioned as distributor for Confluent’s custom part and Confluent’s direct Illinois nitinol sales provide the necessary additional contacts. |
| Forum reasonableness (due process) | Harding: Illinois has strong interest because the injury and plaintiff are in Illinois. | Confluent: Litigating in Illinois is burdensome (premised on lack of jurisdiction). | Court: Forum is reasonable; Confluent offered no concrete burden and Illinois has substantial interest in adjudicating injuries to its resident. |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909 (Ill. 2013) (Illinois Supreme Court applying stream‑of‑commerce plus “something more” to find specific jurisdiction over custom‑part manufacturer).
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (forum may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that places a product into the stream of commerce with expectation it will be purchased in the forum).
- Wiles v. Morita Iron Works Co., 125 Ill. 2d 144 (Ill. 1988) (purposeful availment requires more than unilateral third‑party actions; knowledge that product reaches forum is a considered factor).
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (limits on specific jurisdiction where plaintiffs’ claims lack adequate link to forum).
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (U.S. 2021) (specific jurisdiction can be satisfied when defendant markets and sells the same product in the forum even if the exact unit at issue was not sold there).