Levin v. Posen Foundation
62 F. Supp. 3d 733
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Levin sues for breach of implied contract and copyright infringement against The Posen Foundation, Felix Posen, and James E. Young, and for common law fraud against all three; Young moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the court grants under fiduciary shield.
- Levin is an Illinois resident and Jewish music scholar who teaches in New York and maintains an Illinois address; Young is editor-in-chief of the Library, resides in Massachusetts, and has no Illinois residence or property.
- The Posen Foundation oversees the Library, a ten-volume Jewish culture project; Young’s role is editor-in-chief and he earns $18,000 annually from the Library; the Foundation and Posen control compensation and operations.
- Levin contributed substantial material to the Library from 2009–2011; discussions in 2008–2010 contemplated a stand-alone volume on Jewish music and possible revisions to Volume X, with payments and authorship arrangements.
- Levin alleges Young made six misrepresentations in communications (2009–2010) regarding volume plans, fees, page limits, and future publication; some communications were directed to Illinois recipients.
- The court analyzes personal jurisdiction, finds specific jurisdiction over Young in Illinois based on forum-directed emails and conduct, then applies the fiduciary shield doctrine to dismiss Young without prejudice; concludes Young acted within his employment and thus shield applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Young | Levin argues Young’s Illinois-directed emails and fraud allegations establish jurisdiction. | Young argues there was no basis to claim Illinois-related jurisdiction. | Specific jurisdiction over Young in Illinois; but shield later applies to bar exercise of jurisdiction. |
| Whether Young’s fiduciary shield bars jurisdiction | Levin contends shield does not apply because Young acted outside employment or for personal gain. | Young asserts his actions were within his role and did not involve personal gain beyond employment. | Fiduciary shield applies; Young’s actions were discretionary within his employment; jurisdiction declined. |
| Whether the shield should be lifted due to personal gain or control by Posen/Foundation | Levin claims Young acted to enhance personal stature and Foundation funds could be vulnerable if shield persists. | Actions attributed to Young were controlled by Foundation/Posen; no independent personal stake shown. | No evidence that Young acted for personal gain beyond his employment; shield remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (burden on plaintiff in jurisdictional analysis; use of affidavits in Rule 12(b)(2) disputes)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (minimum contacts require connections between defendant, forum, and litigation)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional torts require purposeful aiming at the forum with injurious effects in the forum)
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2012) (communications can establish minimum contacts for fraud cases when aimed at forum residents)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (factors for assessing fairness and purposeful availment in jurisdiction)
- N. Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2014) (specific jurisdiction requires relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation; related contacts suffice)