2014 IL App (2d) 130781
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Wilder Chiropractic (plaintiff), named representative of a class alleging unsolicited TCPA faxes, settled the underlying class action with Easy PC; Easy PC assigned insurance rights under a State Farm policy to the class.
- Settlement judgment certified a class including members in Wisconsin and Illinois (plaintiff later asserted ~7,076 members, ~60% in Illinois).
- Plaintiff sued State Farm in Lake County (Illinois) for a declaratory judgment that the policy covered the settled claims; State Farm was not served until ~4 months after filing.
- State Farm filed a competing declaratory action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and moved to dismiss the Illinois suit on forum non conveniens, 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3) (pending action), failure to join necessary party (WRT), and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b) (lack of diligence in service).
- The trial court dismissed the Illinois action relying on forum non conveniens and §2-619(a)(3). While this appeal was pending, the federal court dismissed State Farm’s federal action for lack of subject-matter (diversity) jurisdiction.
- The appellate court rejected forum non conveniens and held §2-619(a)(3) was no longer applicable after the federal dismissal, but affirmed dismissal on alternate ground: plaintiff’s nearly four-month delay in serving State Farm violated Rule 103(b); dismissal is without prejudice (statute had not run at service).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed under forum non conveniens | Illinois forum was proper because many class members (majority) were injured in Illinois; plaintiff’s choice deserves full deference | Case is Wisconsin-based (policy issued in WI; key witnesses/documents in WI); federal court in WI is more convenient | Reversed: dismissal on forum non conveniens was an abuse of discretion — Illinois had strong connection (majority of class injured there) and alternate federal forum was unavailable (later dismissed) |
| Whether §2-619(a)(3) supported dismissal due to a pending federal action | Federal action’s jurisdiction was contested; plaintiff argued federal case lacked jurisdiction | Federal action between same parties made Illinois suit duplicative | Mooted/Rejected: federal action was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; §2-619(a)(3) no longer supports dismissal |
| Whether dismissal was proper for failure to join necessary party (WRT) / personal jurisdiction concerns | Plaintiff did not need WRT joined; State Farm did not prove WRT was necessary or not subject to Illinois jurisdiction | WRT (named insured) is a necessary party and may not be subject to Illinois jurisdiction | Not decided by court as basis for dismissal; trial court referenced it but appellant court found State Farm failed to prove WRT’s jurisdictional unavailability |
| Whether dismissal was proper under Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 103(b) for lack of diligence in service | Delay was explainable or comparable to other cases; plaintiff offered no substantive excuse | Nearly 4-month delay in serving an Illinois-headquartered insurer was facially unreasonable | Affirmed on this alternative ground: plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence; dismissal without prejudice because statute of limitations had not expired at time of service |
Key Cases Cited
- Fennell v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 2012 IL 113812 (framework for forum non conveniens; public/private factors and deference to plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Gridley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158 (interest in avoiding application of foreign law; limits on imposing subpoena power across states)
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk S. R.R. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (deference to plaintiff’s forum choice; exceptional circumstances required to disturb it)
- Lonergan v. Crucible Steel Co. of Am., 37 Ill. 2d 599 (threshold requirement that an alternate forum be available for forum non conveniens)
- Brummett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495 (state interest in adjudicating injuries suffered within the state)
- Wieser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359 (relevance of defendant’s principal place of business to forum interest)
- Smargon v. McDonald’s Corp., 31 Ill. App. 3d 493 (availability of alternate forum is critical; necessary-party analysis)