My Fav Electronics, Inc. v. Currie
1:24-cv-01959
N.D. Ill.Jun 26, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Second Life Mac (SLM) and Defendant Diamond Assets are competitors in purchasing and reselling used Apple devices, mainly from school districts.
- SLM alleges its two former executives, Currie and Finnegan-Ratliff, misappropriated SLM's trade secrets and confidential business information as they prepared to depart for (or attempted to join) Diamond Assets.
- These former employees allegedly transmitted valuable proprietary information, including customer lists and sales data, to Diamond Assets; Currie then joined Diamond Assets and Finnegan-Ratliff attempted to but was blocked by a non-compete agreement.
- SLM claims Diamond Assets used the misappropriated information to target and win business from SLM's customers, including some in Illinois.
- SLM sued for violations of state and federal trade secrets laws, tortious interference, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, and obtained a preliminary injunction against Currie prior to naming Diamond Assets as a defendant.
- Diamond Assets moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (over DA) | DA purposely targeted Illinois customers using SLM’s trade secrets. | Contacts with Illinois too limited for jurisdiction. | Sufficient contacts for specific personal jurisdiction. |
| Venue (proper location for suit) | Substantial part of the disputed conduct affected SLM’s customers in Illinois. | Most conduct occurred outside Illinois; venue improper. | Venue proper in N.D. Illinois under § 1391. |
| Preemption under ITSA | Some claims (e.g., unjust enrichment) independent of trade secrets misappropriation. | ITSA preempts any tort/unjust enrichment claims tied to trade secrets. | Will be addressed in later briefing; possible preemption. |
| Use of SLM trade secrets/customers | DA knowingly induced breach and used confidential info to take SLM’s Illinois clients. | No actionable conduct in Illinois; information not trade secret. | Allegations sufficient at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matlin v. Spin Master Corp., 921 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2019) (sets out plaintiff's burden for personal jurisdiction at motion to dismiss stage)
- Curry v. Revolution Lab'ys, LLC, 949 F.3d 385 (7th Cir. 2020) (addresses federal and state law bases for personal jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (articulates the relatedness standard for specific personal jurisdiction)
- Rogers v. City of Hobart, Ind., 996 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2021) (reiterates fair play and substantial justice for due process in jurisdiction)
- Purdue Rsch. Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (standard for resolving factual disputes in jurisdictional briefing)
- J.S.T. Corp. v. Foxconn Interconnect Tech. Ltd., 965 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2020) (distinguishes improper stream-of-commerce jurisdiction theory)