National Gun Victims Action Council v. Schecter
2016 IL App (1st) 152694
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Plaintiffs National Gun Victims Action Council (an Illinois nonprofit) and its president Elliot Fineman contracted orally with defendants Schecter and Libertas (Ohio-based) to provide PR services for a planned Kansas City, Missouri event; communications were by email and phone.
- Plaintiffs alleged monthly fees and invoices totaling about $31,000 paid to defendants; plaintiffs later terminated the relationship and sued for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.
- Defendants never entered Illinois, performed services in Illinois, or maintained an Illinois-directed website; the event and anticipated on-the-ground work were in Missouri.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Illinois’ long-arm statute; the trial court granted the motion based on insufficient minimum contacts.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing specific personal jurisdiction based on ongoing, Internet/email-based business relations and defendants’ knowledge that plaintiffs were Illinois residents.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal, holding defendants’ contacts with Illinois were too attenuated to satisfy due process for specific jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois has specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants | Defendants purposefully directed activities at Illinois via ongoing email/phone communications with Illinois-resident plaintiffs; injury occurred in Illinois | Contacts were limited (fewer than 10 emails, unspecified calls), plaintiffs initiated the transaction, performance was to occur in Missouri, and defendants never availed themselves of Illinois | No specific jurisdiction: plaintiffs failed to show sufficient minimum contacts; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Internet/email communications alone suffice to establish purposeful availment | Email/Internet-based exchanges can establish minimum contacts when targeted at Illinois residents and ongoing | Mere use of email/phone does not equal purposeful direction at Illinois absent targeting or performance in Illinois | Email/phone communications here were insufficient; purposeful availment not established |
| Whether the transaction was initiated and formed in Illinois | Plaintiffs asserted an ongoing business relationship with Illinois nexus | Court found plaintiffs initiated contact for the Kansas City event and contract formation occurred by phone/email without Illinois-specific negotiation | Court held initiation/formation factors favor defendants |
| Whether performance location supports jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argued damages and consequences affected Illinois residents | Defendants noted event/performance was in Missouri and no part of contract required performance in Illinois | Performance factor strongly favors defendants; no ties to Illinois |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (specific jurisdiction exists when defendant purposefully directs activities at the forum and the claim arises from those activities)