Shrum v. Big Lots Stores Inc
3:14-cv-03135
C.D. Ill.Dec 8, 2014Background
- Minor plaintiff Mackenzie Shrum was severely burned when a Mosaic Glass tabletop torch allegedly exploded after purchase from Big Lots; plaintiff sued multiple defendants including Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc. (BVCPS).
- Plaintiff alleged BVCPS tested the torch for safety/compliance prior to importation and sale; BVCPS was accused on strict liability and negligence theories along with other defendants.
- BVCPS is incorporated in Massachusetts, headquartered in New York, and operates 100+ global offices/labs but has no physical office in Illinois; it maintains a registered agent and performed a small percentage of inspections/assessments in Illinois.
- BVCPS moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); the court considered written submissions and affidavits (no evidentiary hearing).
- The court evaluated both specific and general jurisdiction under federal due-process standards (federal standard controlling where narrower than Illinois constitutional standard) and analyzed whether plaintiff’s claims arose from BVCPS’s Illinois-related contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific personal jurisdiction | BVCPS committed a tortious act that injured Shrum in Illinois (thus jurisdiction lies where injury occurred) | BVCPS’s testing and communications were performed outside Illinois; no claims-related contacts with Illinois and plaintiff cannot be sole link | No specific jurisdiction — plaintiff’s injury in Illinois alone insufficient; no purposeful availment or suit-related contacts directed to Illinois |
| General personal jurisdiction | BVCPS does continuous/systematic business in Illinois (agent, employees, inspections, revenue) | BVCPS is not incorporated or headquartered in Illinois, has no office there, only minimal in-state activities/revenue and informational websites | No general jurisdiction — contacts not sufficiently continuous and systematic to render BVCPS “at home” in Illinois |
| Relevance of third-party distribution | Plaintiff relied on presence of product in Illinois to connect BVCPS to forum | BVCPS argued product’s presence resulted from unilateral actions of Designco/Big Lots (third parties) | Court agreed third-party distribution cannot supply defendant-created contacts; foreseeability is insufficient |
| Effect of Walden and post-Daimler precedent | Plaintiff relied on older cases holding tort/injury in forum could confer jurisdiction | BVCPS cited Walden, Daimler, and Seventh Circuit cases limiting reach of tort-based jurisdiction | Court applied Walden/Daimler framework: plaintiff cannot be the only link; prior jurisprudence to contrary abrogated; dismissal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (jurisdictional inquiry focuses on defendant’s forum-directed conduct; plaintiff’s injury in forum is not alone sufficient)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction limited to forums where corporation is essentially at home; contacts must be pervasive)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (general-jurisdiction standard: continuous and systematic contacts required to be "at home")
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (foreseeability that goods reach forum insufficient without purposeful availment)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and reasonable foreseeability inform specific jurisdiction analysis)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability of product reaching forum is not by itself enough for jurisdiction)
- N. Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2014) (standards for prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction on written record)
- Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction; standard when based on written submissions)
- uBid, Inc. v. GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010) (significant in-state revenue or customers alone may be insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) (after Walden, plaintiff cannot be sole link between defendant and forum for jurisdiction)