2018 IL App (1st) 171674
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Joakim Robertsson (Swedish resident) sued attorney Luka Misetic (New York resident) in Cook County for defamation and false-light based on blog posts alleging Robertsson falsified evidence in the Gotovina prosecution.
- Robertsson alleged Misetic was subject to Illinois jurisdiction because Misetic held an Illinois law license, listed a Chicago mailing/address and phone number, and had directory listings and court appearance forms with a Chicago address.
- Misetic submitted uncontradicted affidavits stating he lived in New York (and previously the Netherlands/Florida), practiced primarily in international tribunals, wrote the blog from New York, had not practiced for Illinois clients in years, and that the Chicago address was a UPS mailbox and not a physical office.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Robertsson’s motion to reconsider was denied. He appealed claiming both general and specific jurisdiction.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, applying federal due process minimum-contacts principles and Illinois long-arm statute coextensive with federal limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois courts have general jurisdiction over Misetic | Misetic's Illinois law license, Chicago listings, and appearances show systematic and continuous contacts with Illinois | License, mailbox, phone listing, and isolated appearances are casual/attenuated, not continuous business in Illinois | No general jurisdiction; license and listings insufficient |
| Whether Illinois courts have specific jurisdiction for the defamation/false-light claims | Misetic authored blog posts (allegedly defamatory) and held himself out as an Illinois attorney, so posts targeted Illinois | Posts were written and posted from New York, not directed at Illinois; plaintiff is Swedish and did not suffer effects in Illinois | No specific jurisdiction; no purposeful direction at Illinois or injury there |
| Whether attorney disciplinary authority or Rule 8.5 supports jurisdiction | Rule comment suggests disciplinary authority may factor into jurisdiction; license subjects lawyer to Illinois rules | Professional-discipline authority and rules do not equate to civil jurisdiction absent other contacts; issue forfeited below | Rejected: professional rules/licensure insufficient and argument forfeited |
| Whether plaintiff met his prima facie burden given competing affidavits | Directory listings and ARDC records raise a prima facie case of contacts | Misetic's uncontradicted affidavits negate those allegations, showing no physical office, no Illinois clients, and mailbox use | Plaintiff failed to meet burden; uncontradicted affidavit evidence controls |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum-contacts due process test)
- Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (fair play and substantial justice framework)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and forum-focused conduct for specific jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test where intentional acts are expressly aimed at the forum)
- Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909 (Illinois standards for prima facie jurisdictional showing and general vs specific jurisdiction)
- Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Interstate Warehousing, 2017 IL 121281 (foreign registration or contacts do not by themselves confer general jurisdiction)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (internet presence alone insufficient for jurisdiction without purposeful targeting)
- Hoekstra v. Bose, 302 Ill. App. 3d 704 (possession of a state credential alone is too attenuated a contact for jurisdiction)
- Baker v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 999 P.2d 1020 (bar membership alone does not establish general jurisdiction)