Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03685/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 11, 2015*

Decided May 11, 2015

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐3685

BERNARD HENNEBERGER,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

TICOM GEOMATICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 14‐cv‐00920‐MJR‐SCW

Michael J. Reagan,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Bernard Henneberger appeals the dismissal of his complaint for lack of personal

jurisdiction. We agree with the district court that Henneberger did not make a prima

facie showing of the court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and affirm.

Henneberger filed this breach‐of‐contract lawsuit in state court against his former

employer, Ticom Geomatics, Inc.; Mark Leach, the president of Ticom; David Feuerstein,

a manager at Ticom; and two companies with an ownership interest in Ticom—Six3

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 14-3685 Document: 19 Filed: 05/11/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14‐3685    Page 2

Systems, Inc. and CACI International, Inc. He alleged that in 1998 he began working at

Ticom, which (so far as we can tell from the complaint) provides geolocation

technologies to the intelligence community. As he alleged, Leach and Feuerstein

promised him an equity interest or proceeds of up to $1,000,000 if the company were

ever sold, but he received nothing when Ticom was sold to Six3 or later when Six3 and

its subsidiary Ticom were sold to CACI.

The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack

of personal jurisdiction. They submitted affidavits denying any significant activities or

contacts took place in Illinois; the defendants also attached two employment

agreements—a nondisclosure agreement and a compensation offer letter—purportedly

signed by Henneberger in December 2002.

Henneberger, for his part, emphasized defendants’ “very significant contacts”

with Illinois and Ticom’s once being owned by “GTCR,” a Chicago‐based investment

firm that is not a party to the case. Henneberger also sought sanctions under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 11, charging the defendants with forging his signature on the

employment agreements in order to defraud the court.

The district court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the case for lack

of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Henneberger had failed to establish a prima

facie case of personal jurisdiction. It noted that Henneberger’s bald assertion that the

defendants had minimum contacts with Illinois was not enough to make a prima facie

case. The court denied Henneberger’s motion for sanctions as moot.

In a cursory brief, Henneberger asks us to consider new evidence that he did not

submit to the district court—an affidavit and news accounts about GTCR that ostensibly

show that GTCR owned Ticom at one point—and argues that it demonstrates minimum

contacts between the defendants and Illinois. But we will not consider this evidence for

the first time on appeal. See Ruvalcaba v. Chandler, 416 F.3d 555, 562 n.2 (7th Cir. 2005).

The district court correctly concluded that Ticom and the other defendants had

neither sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois for specific jurisdiction, nor continuous

and systematic relations with Illinois as required for general jurisdiction. A federal

district court sitting in diversity applies the personal jurisdiction rules of the state in

which it sits, and Illinois law allows personal jurisdiction over a defendant to the extent

permitted by the Due Process Clause, which authorizes personal jurisdiction over

out‐of‐state defendants when they have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum

state. See 735 ILCS 5/2‐209(c); Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp. of Wis., No. 14‐2527, 2015 WL

Case: 14-3685 Document: 19 Filed: 05/11/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14‐3685    Page 3

1692875, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 15, 2015). When a district court relies solely on written

materials to rule on a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a

plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.

See Kipp, 2015 WL 1692875, at *2. Henneberger failed to do so. He merely asserted in his

pleadings that the defendants had minimum contacts with Illinois, but offered no

evidence to support this contention; this is insufficient in light of the defendants’

affidavits. See Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi‐Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782–83

(7th Cir. 2003).

In a motion, Henneberger also asks us to forward the record in this case to the

United States Attorney so that the government may investigate the defendants’

purported forgery and perjury relating to the filing of documents with Henneberger’s

forged signature. The motion is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-3685 Document: 19 Filed: 05/11/2015 Pages: 3