Price v. Schlee & Stillman, LLC
1:16-cv-08020
N.D. Ill.May 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Bonnie Price, a Kentucky resident and senior, received debt-collection letters from Schlee & Stillman LLC and was represented by Chicago-based LASPD after notifying defendant via fax to cease contact.
- After the representation notice, defendant sent another collection letter to Price in Kentucky from its Massachusetts office; that letter is the basis for Price’s FDCPA suit in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Defendant is a Maryland LLC with headquarters in Maryland and satellite offices elsewhere; it is registered as a foreign corporation in Illinois and has a registered agent in Springfield but has no Illinois offices or employees.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and alternatively under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue.
- The court considered whether general or specific personal jurisdiction existed based on the defendant’s contacts with Illinois and the locus of the allegedly violative conduct (sending the letter from Massachusetts to Kentucky).
- The court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice; venue issues were deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General personal jurisdiction | Defendant’s registration to do business in Illinois and past collections activities subject it to general jurisdiction | Defendant is not incorporated or headquartered in Illinois and lacks continuous, systematic operations here | No general jurisdiction; registration and isolated business do not meet Daimler’s “at home” standard |
| Specific personal jurisdiction | Plaintiff’s counsel in Chicago (LASPD) served as Price’s contact, effectively directing defendant’s activities toward Illinois | The allegedly violative act (letter) was sent from Massachusetts to Kentucky; counsel’s location is irrelevant to where the injury occurred | No specific jurisdiction; the defendant’s forum-related contacts did not give rise to the injury |
| Waiver of jurisdictional defense | Plaintiff: defendant litigated and entered settlement negotiations in Illinois for months, waiving jurisdictional objection | Defendant: timely raised jurisdictional defense in a pre-answer Rule 12 motion and did not forfeit it | No waiver; preliminary litigation and settlement discussions did not waive Rule 12 defenses |
| Venue proper in Northern District | Plaintiff implicitly relied on counsel’s location to support venue | Defendant argued venue improper given lack of relevant contacts and registered agent in a different federal district | Court did not reach venue because dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction rendered venue question moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum contacts due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment or direction and a link to the claim)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (defendant must reasonably anticipate being haled into forum state)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction limited to where corporation is essentially at home)
- Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi–Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (plaintiff’s prima facie burden on personal jurisdiction at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp. of Wisc., 783 F.3d 695 (Seventh Circuit: general jurisdiction not lightly found post-Daimler)