United Airlines, Inc. v. Zaman
152 F. Supp. 3d 1041
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- United Airlines sued Skiplagged founder Aktarer Zaman for Lanham Act trademark infringement, tortious interference, and misappropriation based on Skiplagged.com’s promotion of “hidden city” ticketing and links redirecting users to United.com and other booking sites.
- Zaman is a New York resident; United is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Illinois. Zaman moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
- Zaman had signed an earlier Orbitz affiliate agreement (December 2013) containing an Illinois forum-selection clause; that agreement was later terminated and Orbitz settled its claims.
- United’s in-house counsel (Houston-based) sent a September 5, 2014 cease-and-desist email to Zaman; Zaman replied same day proposing partnership and later agreed on a Sept. 9 call (which included United’s Illinois-based marketing director) to remove United references but allegedly failed to do so.
- The record shows a limited course of dealings: the affiliate agreement with Orbitz (third party) and a short email/phone exchange between the parties; no evidence Zaman traveled to, banked in, or otherwise purposefully availed himself of Illinois.
- The district court dismissed for lack of specific personal jurisdiction, finding Zaman’s contacts were neither created with Illinois nor sufficiently targeted or related to the litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction over Zaman in Illinois | United: Zaman purposefully directed conduct at Illinois — United is based there, Zaman’s conduct injured United in Illinois, and communications (emails/phone call) involved an Illinois employee | Zaman: Is a New York resident with only limited contacts (Orbitz affiliate contract with Illinois clause; one email chain and one call) and no purposeful availment of Illinois | Court: No — plaintiff failed to show Zaman’s contacts were created by him, targeted at Illinois, and tied to the claims; mere injury to an Illinois plaintiff and sparse communications insufficient |
| Whether the Orbitz affiliate agreement’s Illinois forum-selection clause confers jurisdiction here | United: Forum clause in Zaman’s Orbitz agreement shows consent to Illinois jurisdiction | Zaman: Agreement concerned Orbitz (third party); United is not a party or third-party beneficiary; the agreement doesn’t relate to United’s claims | Court: No — the agreement does not bear on the substantive dispute and United lacks standing to enforce the clause |
| Whether Zaman waived jurisdictional objections by consenting to Illinois forum via the affiliate agreement | United: Waiver because Zaman agreed to Illinois forum in contract | Zaman: United is non-signatory; no affiliation or mutuality with Orbitz to permit enforcement | Court: No waiver — no evidence of affiliation or mutuality allowing United to enforce the clause |
| Whether limited communications (cease-and-desist exchange and partnership pitch) suffice for jurisdiction | United: Communications, including a call involving an Illinois employee, show purposeful targeting | Zaman: Communications were initiated by United; primary correspondent was Texas-based counsel; contact was minimal and not directed specifically at Illinois | Court: No — communications were sparse, not clearly targeted at Illinois, and were primarily responses to plaintiff-initiated contact; insufficient for jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (contacts must be defendant’s contacts with the forum itself, not merely with a forum resident)
- Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) (online contacts and sales to forum residents insufficient absent targeting; focus on defendant–forum–litigation nexus)
- uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must make prima facie showing of jurisdiction when no evidentiary hearing)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (Calder-based analysis for intentional torts where conduct is expressly targeted at the forum)
- Northern Grain Marketing, LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2014) (contacts insufficient where negotiations and contracts occurred remotely with no in-person forum presence)
- Hemi Group LLC v. City of New York, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010) (defendant’s deliberate decision to do business in certain states can support jurisdiction)
- RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272 (7th Cir. 1997) (cause of action must directly arise out of defendant’s contacts with the forum)
- Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 565 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2009) (forum contacts must be relevant to the claim)