Koss Corp. v. Sachdeva
2012 IL App (1st) 120379
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Koss alleged two groups of wrongful conduct by Thornton: (a) audit-team failure to uncover Sachdeva’s embezzlement from 2004–2008; (b) corporate HQ policies, procedures, and training leading to inadequate audits.
- Most embezzlement and audits occurred in Wisconsin, where Koss’s principal place of business is, and where Thornton’s Wisconsin offices are located.
- Thornton moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens to Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; the trial court granted the motion.
- Discovery showed most witnesses and documents could be located in Illinois or Wisconsin, with some in Cook County where Thornton HQ is.
- The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by not fully considering Koss’s allegations about corporate policies and training and by applying an improper evidentiary burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope of allegations considered | Koss argues corporate policy/ training claims were overlooked | Thornton contends only audit-related claims matter | overruled; court considered corporate claims too |
| evidentiary burden | Koss says Wisconsin witnesses need not provide affidavits | Thornton says burden proper for forum non conveniens | trial court did not abuse discretion in burden allocation |
| deference to plaintiff’s forum choice | Koss choice of Cook County should be given standard deference | Cook County is not plaintiff’s home forum; Wisconsin forum favored | standard deference due; error in reducing deference |
| private/public factors balance | Private/public factors do not overwhelmingly favor Wisconsin | Forum non conveniens should be granted for Wisconsin | Illinois forum not strongly disfavored; error in transfer ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (Ill. 2006) (burden to show factors strongly favor transfer; appellate review standard)
- Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158 (Ill. 2005) (balance of private/public factors; deference to trial court)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2003) (balancing factors; discretion in forum non conveniens)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (less specificity required at forum non conveniens stage)
- Erwin v. Motorola, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d 261 (Ill. App. 2011) (corporate officers at Illinois can be relevant to injuries in other forums)
- Woodward v. Firestone, Inc., 368 Ill. App. 3d 827 (Ill. App. 2006) (e-discovery and accessibility of evidence across forums)
- Jewel Food Stores, Inc. v. Jewel Food Stores, 374 Ill. App. 3d 31 (Ill. App. 2007) (significant local interest when injury occurred locally)
- Haring v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., 103 Ill. 2d 530 (Ill. 1984) (affidavits sufficiency in Rule 187 forum motions; reliance on specific witnesses)
- Botello v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 348 Ill. App. 3d 445 (Ill. App. 2004) (affidavit sufficiency under Rule 187; less specificity allowed)
- Walker v. Iowa Marine Repair Corp., 132 Ill. App. 3d 621 (Ill. App. 1985) (witness/location information sufficiency for forum motions)
- Hernandez v. Karlin Foods Corp., 322 Ill. App. 3d 805 (Ill. App. 2001) (testimony reasonably expected from witnesses)