Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Philip G. Reinhard Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 50067 DATE 7/2/2012

CASE

TITLE

Northern Grain Marketing, LLC vs. Greving

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

For the reasons stated below, the court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses this cause in its

entirety.

O[ For further details see text below.] Electronic Notices.

STATEMENT - OPINION

Plaintiff, Northern Grain Marketing, LLC, filed a one-count complaint based on diversity jurisdiction against

defendant, Marvin Greving, a citizen of Wisconsin, seeking to compel arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration

Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, of a contract dispute between the parties. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint, raising 1

the following four bases: (1) that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), there is no basis to compel arbitration under the

facts alleged; (2) that, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant would violate due

process; (3) that, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), venue is not proper in this district; and (4) that this action should be

dismissed or stayed under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), because

there is a parallel action involving these parties pending in a Wisconsin state court. Plaintiff responds that based on

written confirmations that contained an arbitration requirement this case is in fact arbitrable. Plaintiff further contends

that venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this

district and that arbitration may proceed in this district. Plaintiff further asserts that Colorado River abstention should

not be invoked because although the two cases are parallel, the various factors under Colorado River favor maintaining

the case here. Finally, plaintiff argues that personal jurisdiction over defendant is proper because defendant had the

minimum contacts Constitutionally necessary to require him to defend himself in Illinois.

While the court has carefully considered each basis for dismissal (or stay), the court finds the personal

jurisdiction issue to be dispositive. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a state from

exercising specific jurisdiction over a defendant, unless the defendant had certain minimum contacts with the forum 2

state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Citadel

Group, Ltd. v. Washington Regional Medical Ctr., 536 F. 3d 757, 761 (7 Cir. 2008). A state has an interest in th

providing its residents with a forum for redressing harms caused by an out-of-state actor, particularly where the out-ofstate actor has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus

invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Citadel Group, Ltd., 536 F. 3d at 761. The defendant’s contacts,

however, must not be merely random, fortuitous, or attenuated. Citadel Group, Ltd., 536 F. 3d at 761. Rather, the

defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state must be such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled

into court there. Citadel Group, Ltd., 536 F. 3d at 761.

In the context of a contractual relationship, the contracts alone do not automatically establish sufficient

minimum contacts. Citadel Group, Ltd., 536 F. 3d at 761. The court must look beyond the mere fact of contracting to

12C50067 Northern Grain Marketing, LLC vs. Greving Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT - OPINION

1. Plaintiff is in the business of buying and selling grain, and defendant is a farmer who raises grain in Walworth

County, Wisconsin.

2. Plaintiff properly does not contend that there is any basis to invoke general jurisdiction over defendant.

3. Neither party has sought an evidentiary hearing here and has relied on the submission of written materials only.

4. To the extent plaintiff eventually transported the grain into Illinois is of no consequence as that would be

unilateral conduct not affecting defendant ’s amenability to personal jurisdiction here.

5. Because the court dismisses this case on this basis, it need not decide any of the remaining issues.

the parties’ prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, the terms of the contracts, and the parties’ actual

course of dealing. Citadel Group, Ltd., 536 F. 3d at 761. The court does not consider, however, the unilateral activity

of parties who have some relationship with the out-of-state defendant. Citadel Group, Ltd., 536 F. 3d at 761-62. In

determining the parties’ prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, the terms of the contracts, and the

actual course of dealing, the court must consider several factors, including who initiated the transaction, where the

contract was entered into, where the performance was to take place, and where the contract was negotiated. Citadel

Group, Ltd., 536 F. 3d at 762.

Procedurally speaking, a complaint need not include facts alleging personal jurisdiction. Purdue Research

Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F. 3d 773, 782 (th Cir. 2003). However, once a defendant moves to

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the

existence of such jurisdiction. Purdue Research Foundation, 338 F. 3d at 782. When a court rules on a defendant’s

motion to dismiss based on the submission of written materials as opposed to holding an evidentiary hearing, the

3

plaintiff need only make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Purdue Research Foundation, 338 F. 3d at

782. In evaluating whether the prima facie standard has been satisfied, the plaintiff is entitled to the resolution in its

favor of all disputes concerning relevant facts presented in the record. Purdue Research Foundation, 338 F. 3d at 782.

Here, plaintiff has failed to make the required prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over defendant is

proper under the Due Process Clause. Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that defendant ever was physically present

in Illinois other than at the seed gathering in Rochelle in 2003. But that is nothing more than a fortuitous event as

there is no evidence that defendant traveled there for the purpose of soliciting business or engaging in a contractual

relationship with plaintiff or anyone else. Nor is there any evidence that defendant attended the gathering as an invitee

of plaintiff. The undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff’s representative, Tom Wilson, and defendant met by

complete happenstance while at the gathering. Additionally, there is no evidence that defendant solicited or initiated

any sort of business relationship with Wilson or anyone else while he was at the gathering. This is not the type of

conduct that is sufficient to justify haling defendant into court in this state.

Nor do any of the aspects of the course of dealing between the parties support imposition of personal

jurisdiction over defendant. While there were several contacts over the course of several years, there is no evidence

that defendant had any significant contacts with Illinois beyond some telephone calls made from Wisconsin. Similarly,

his in person meetings with Wilson (other than the initial happenstance encounter in Rochelle) all occurred in

Wisconsin. Defendant’s grain was grown and harvested in Wisconsin. Further, he performed his obligations under the

contracts by delivering his grain to an elevator in Wisconsin. Thus, neither his grain nor any vehicles operating at his

direction ever directly entered Illinois. Also, the mere fact that contracts and settlement checks originated in Illinois 4

is insufficient, even when considered with all the other facts, to justify invocation of personal jurisdiction in this case.

Neither is there any evidence that defendant ever solicited any purchases of grain by plaintiff. In fact, defendant’s

undisputed declaration states that Wilson solicited the sales of grain by defendant to plaintiff. When all the evidence

is considered in totality, even in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff has not satisfied the prima facie standard

required to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant in this state. Accordingly, the court grants defendant’s

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) and dismisses this cause in its entirety.5

12C50067 Northern Grain Marketing, LLC vs. Greving Page 2 of 2