Northern Grain Marketing, LLC v. Marvin Greving
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2932
7th Cir.2014Background
- Greving is a Wisconsin farmer who, beginning in 2003, sold grain to Northern Grain (an Illinois-based buyer) via repeated oral agreements confirmed in writing over ~9 years; deliveries and farming occurred in Wisconsin.
- Greving met Northern Grain’s originator, Wilson, once at a seed-corn trade meeting in Rochelle, Illinois (2003); subsequent negotiations and meetings occurred in Wisconsin or by phone.
- Northern Grain alleges Greving repudiated several oral contracts for deliveries between Dec 2010 and Dec 2012 and sought nearly $1 million plus fees; unsigned confirmations included an NGFA arbitration clause.
- Northern Grain filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois to compel arbitration; Greving moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Northern Grain appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Greving lacked the requisite minimum contacts with Illinois for specific jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois courts (federal district court in Illinois) have specific personal jurisdiction over Greving for a contract dispute with an Illinois buyer | Northern Grain: Greving’s repeated contracts, knowledge that buyer was in Illinois, and receipt of checks drawn on Illinois banks establish purposeful availment and contacts with Illinois | Greving: Contracts were negotiated/performed in Wisconsin; contacts with Illinois are minimal/attenuated (one trade-show meeting years earlier); no purposeful availment | Held: No specific jurisdiction—Greving lacked minimum contacts with Illinois; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the 2003 seed-corn meeting in Illinois is a meaningful forum contact for the later contracts | Northern Grain: The meeting established the business relationship and supports jurisdiction | Greving: The meeting was fortuitous; he did not attend to solicit buyers and it was remote in time from disputed contracts | Held: Even if considered, the meeting was attenuated and insufficient to establish purposeful availment |
| Whether repeated, discrete sale contracts change the jurisdictional analysis | Northern Grain: Multiple transactions over nine years show ongoing relationship with Illinois party | Greving: Each contract was a discrete performance in Wisconsin (grow and deliver locally); buyer’s only obligation was payment | Held: Repeated discrete transactions did not create contacts sufficient for jurisdiction; not like continuing obligations in franchise/insurance cases |
| Whether traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice were offended by exercising jurisdiction | Northern Grain: Convenience and plaintiff’s forum favor Illinois adjudication | Greving: Due process forbids haling a nonresident into Illinois absent minimum contacts | Held: Court did not reach detailed fairness analysis because constitutional minimum-contacts requirement was not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (sets minimum-contacts due-process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and context-sensitive contract analysis)
- Madison Consulting Group v. South Carolina, 752 F.2d 1193 (contacts showing purposeful solicitation can support jurisdiction)
- Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co., 597 F.2d 596 (no jurisdiction where contacts were limited and unilateral activity of forum plaintiff predominated)
- Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, 338 F.3d 773 (contract analysis: prior negotiations, contemplated consequences, contract terms, course of dealing)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (specific jurisdiction requirements and relation of contacts to the claim)