## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1407 S TATE OF I LLINO IS, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. H EM I G R OUP LLC , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 3:08- cv-03050

—Jeanne E . Sc ott, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 24, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 14, 2010

Befo re B AUER, K ANN E , a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e s t a t e o fI l l i n o i s s ue d H e mi G ro u p L L C for s ellin g c iga re tt e s t o Il lin ois res id en ts in vi ol ati on o fst ate l aw s a nd f orf ai l i ng to r epor t those sal es i n vi ol ati on o ffedera ll aw . The di stric t courtdeni ed H em i ’ s m oti on t o dism i ss f orl ack ofper sonalj uri sdic

ti on, fi nd i ng tha t the Inter net tra nsacti ons suffi ced to e s t ab l i s h p e r s o n a lj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r H e mii n I l l i no i s . We a ffi r m.2 N o. 09

- 1407

A tor a l a r g u me n t, c o u n s e l f o r I l l i n o i s i n d i c a t e d th a tH e mi 1 ha s sub sequ e n t l y incre ased the n u m b er o f states to w hich it w il l not s h ip ci garett es , al though the add it ional s tat es are no t pa rt of the rec or d on ap p eal.

I. B ACK GR OUN D H em i, bas ed out ofN ew M exi co, se l l s di sco unt ci gare tte s thro ugh i ts m any websi tes
. Custom er s m ay pla ce ord ers online or throu gh m ail, t el ep hon e, or f ax . Cu stom ers o nl i ne may det er m i ne the i r s hi ppi ngc o st s byi nput ti ng thei r zi p codes on the websi te . Il l i noi s a l l ege s that H em i sol d c i gar ett es to I l l i noi s r esi dents thr ough i ts w ebsi tes
. The o nl y sp ec i fi c sa l es to an I l l i noi s r esi dent that I l l i noi s i d en ti fi ed i n i ts com pla i nt were i nsti gat ed by a s peci alse ni orag ent o fthe I l l i noi s Depart m en t of Revenue, wh o pu rchas ed m or e than thr ee hund re d packs o f ci gar ett es fro m H em i

- oper ate d w ebsi tes i n 200 5 a nd 20 07. On se ve ra lo fi ts w ebsi tes , H em ist ate s that i t wil lnot sel lci gar ett es to N ew Yor k r esi dents; o n one of those 1 si tes , i t e xplains thato ngoing l i ti gat i on in N ew Y ork l ed to the deci si on notto se l lci gar ett es t h er e. On anothero f tho s e s i t e s , He mi n o t e s tha ti ts e l l s t o e v e r y stat e e xc e pt N ew Y or k. H em i d oe s n otsp ec ific a l l y s in gle ou t Illino is re si dents o n any ofi ts w ebsi tes
. H em i p ay s t h e fe d er al t a x on th e c iga re tt es th at it se lls via i ts web si te s, b utI l l i no i s l aw l ea ve s i t to the b uy er s to pay the appli cabl e s tat e t ax o n ci gar ett es pu rchas ed ove r the Int e r ne to r b y ma i l, p ho ne , o r f a x. He mi ’ s we bsites di r ec t cus to m er s to c he ckwi ththe i r s ta te s to determ i ne the i r re sponsibi l i ty f orpayi ng st ate ta xes.N o. 09

- 1407 3 The parti es agr ee that H em ii s no t a r esi dent ofI l l i noi s. It is n o t in c or p or at ed or or ga n ize d u n d er Il lin ois law , i t i s no t r egi ste red t o do busi ness i n I l l i noi s, i t doe s no t ha ve a ny o ffi ce s o r e m pl o y ee s i n I l l i noi s, it doe s no t ba nk inIl lin o i s , a n d it h as n otad ve rt ise d in p rin t m ed ia i n I l l i noi s. I l l i noi s s ue d H em i in I l l i noi s s tat e co urt f orf ai l i ng to su b m it to Illino is m on th ly re p or ts of sale s to Il lin ois r es i den ts as re qui r ed bythe J en k i ns Act, f o r v i o l at i ng th e P re ve n tio n A c t b y s h ip p in g c iga re tt es to Il lin ois reside nt s th at w ere not li cen sed d istribu tors or exp ort war eh o us e o per at o r s, a nd f o r v i o l at in gthe Enf o r ce m en t A ct a nd the Consum erFr aud A ct b y s el l i ng b ra n ds of c iga re tt es to Il lin ois res id en ts th at w er e n otin t h e Illino is Dir ecto ry . H em ir em ove d the ca se t o federa lco urt and m ove d to d ism iss f or lack of p erson al j urisd iction. Th e d istri ct cou rt d en ied H em i’s m ot ion, fin d in g t h at H em i p u rp os efu lly avai l ed itsel fo fthe opportunity t o do busi ness w i th I l l i noi s r esi dents and thatdue proc ess was not offended bye xe r ci singpe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r Hem i
. The dist ri ct c ourt, however, st aye d the pro ceedin gs bel ow to al l o w H emi t o pur su e th i s i nt er l o cut o r y a ppea lo fthe d istri ct cou rt’s order.

II. A NA LYSIS T he sole qu estion on ap p eal is w he th er the d istri ct cou rt i n I l l i noi s m ay proper l y e xerci se perso nalj uri sdic

ti on o verH em i
. W e r evi ew questi ons ofper sonalj uri sdic

-4 N o. 09

- 1407 ti o n deno vo . K inslo w v. P ulla ra , 53 8 F.3 d 687, 69 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ).

A. S co peof

Il l i nois Cons t i t ut i on Because the J enkins A ct doe s no t pr ovi de f orse rv i ce ofpro cess , the dist ri ct c ourtm ay exer ci se perso nalj uri sdict i on o verH em i o nl y t o the e xtent that a co urt of g en er alj ur i sdi ct i o n in I l l i no i s co ul d. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 4( k) ( 1) ( A )
. Illi noi s’ s l ong- ar m st atute pro vi des f orj uri sdict i on “ on a ny . . . bas i s no w o r here afterper m i tte d by th e I l l i no is Co ns ti tu ti o n o r the Co ns ti tu ti o n o fthe U nited S tates
. ” 735 ILC S 5/2-209(c). Th e d istri ct cou rt m aye xe r ci se j ur i sdi ct i o n o nl y i fb o ththe s ta te a nd fed er al c on st itu tio n al r eq u ire m en ts are sa tis fied

. See Sab ados v. Pla nne d Pare ntho o d o f Gr e at e rIndi ana , 88 2 N
. E
. 2d 121, 125 (I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 2007). T he I ll inois C ons titution all ow s a state cou rt to exerci se pe r so na lj ur i sdictio n “ o nl y wher e i t i s f ai r, j us t, a nd r ea so nabl e . . . c o ns i der i ngthe q ua l i tya nd na tu r e o fthe defe nd an t’ s a cts w hi ch oc cur in I l l i noi s o r w hi ch affect i nter est s l oca ted i n I l l i noi s. ” Cit ade l Gr oup Lt d. v. Was hi ngto n R eg’l M ed. C tr. , 5 36 F
. 3d 75 7, 7 61 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( i nt ern al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ). A lth ou gh th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t has st ate d that “the scope ofIl l i noi s’ s l ongar m st atute m ay not b e co- extensi ve w i th the j uri sd ict ion al a sp ec t o f th e F ed er al d u e p ro c es s c lau se in any par ti cul arsi tuatio n, ” Roll i ns v. Ell wood, 56 5 N
. E.2 d 1302 , 13 15 ( I l l

. 19 90) , subse quent courts have note d that n o c as e h as ye t a r i s en w h er e fe d er al d u e p ro c es s w ou ld al l o w the ex er ci se o fpe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r a de fen -N o. 09

- 1407 5 d an t b u t t h e Illino is C on st itu tio n w ou ld n ot
. S e eK i n s l ow , 53 8 F .3d at69 1; Hyatt Int’ l C orp. v. C oco , 30 2 F
. 3d 707, 71 5- 16 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ; Sab ados , 8 8 2 N
. E
. 2 d a t1 2 5 n . 2
. H e mi ar gues, how eve r, that a ser i es of re cent I l l in ois ap pel l ate cour t deci si ons dem onst ra tes thatI l l i noi s doe s in f act re q u ire m or e t h an fed er al la w . See E stat e of Isring ha usen v. P ri m e C ontract ors and A ss ociate s, Inc. , 883 N .E .2d 59 4 (Ill. A pp . Ct. 20 08); Ha nso n v . Ah m ed, 88 9 N. E. 2 d 74 0 ( I l l

. App
. Ct. 20 08); Sa ba dos , 882 N .E .2d 12 1; B olgerv. Nautica Int’ l, Inc. , 861 N
. E
. 2d 666 (I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 2007). W e a re notco nvi nced. N one ofthe case s ci ted by H em iev en sugg est s, m uch l ess hol ds, thatther e i s a m ea n in gfu l d iffer en c e b et w ee n th e fe d er al a n d Il lin ois d u e p r o c e s s s t a n d a r d s . I n f a c t, th e c o u r ti n Sa bados

— a case ci ted by H em ii n supp or t o fi ts posi ti on

— note d th atthe di st i nc ti o n was the o r eti ca l, a nd tha t i t w as unaw ar e o fany case actual l y hol ding that “pers onalj uri sdic

ti o n c o ul d b e sa ti sfi ed un derthe fede r alc o ns ti tu ti o n, b ut not the I l l i noi s Consti tuti on. ” 882 N
. E.2 d at 1 25 n. 2 ( ci t i ng Kostal v. P inkus D er m atopa thology Lab. , 8 27 N
. E.2 d 1031, 10 37(Ill . A p p . C t. 20 05 )). W e a re n otint er es te d in usurpi ng I l l i noi s’ s co nceptual i zati on o fdue process. H owever, we are stil lunabl e t o disc er n an “o perat i ve d iffer en c e b et w ee n th e lim its im p os ed by t h e Illino is Consti tuti on a nd the fed er all i m i tat i ons on per sonal j uri sdic ti on. ” Hya tt Int’l C o rp . , 30 2 F
. 3d at 715. There f or e, w e w i l l l i m i t our anal ysi s to w hether exer ci si n g juri sdict i on o verH em ico m port s wit h the federa lguar antee of d u e p ro c es s. Se eCi t ade l Gr oup , 53 6 F
. 3d at 761.6 N o. 09

- 1407 B. Fe de r al Cons t i t ut i onal Li m i t s on Pe rs onal Jur i s di ct i on W e r ec en tly des cr ibe d th e “c ur r en t st at e o f th e con sti tuti onaldi m ensi on o fper sonalj uri sdic ti on”: [ T]he defe nd ant m ust hav e minimum co nt acts with th e f o r um s tate suc h tha t th e m aint en an ce o fthe su it does no t o ffend tr adit i onalnot i ons off air pla y a nd subst anti alj usti ce. Those conta cts m ay not be for tui tous. Instea d, the defendant m ust have pu rpos efully e stabl i shed m i n im um co ntacts w i thi n the f or um S tat e be f or e per so nalj uri sdic

tion w il l be foun d t o b e rea son able and f air. Cruci alto the m i ni m um co ntacts anal ysi s i s a sh ow in g t h at th e d efe n d an t s h ou ld rea so n ab ly an ti ci pat e be i ngha l ed i nt o c o ur t in the fo r um St at e, be c au se th e d efe n d an t h as p u rp os efu lly av aile d its elf of th e pr ivile ge of con d u c tin g a c tiv iti es ther e. Kin s l ow , 5 38 F.3d at 691 (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). The dist ri ct cour t hel d, and I l l i noi s does not ap p ea r to di sa g r ee , tha t H emi do es no t h av e th e co nt i nuo us a nd sy st em ati c g ener albusi ness conta cts w i th I l l i noi s t o j u st ify ex er c isin g g en er al jur isd ict ion ov er H em i. Il li nois v. Hem i G rou p L LC, N o. 08 -30 50 , 200 8 W L 45 45 34 9, at *2 (C .D . I ll. O c t. 10 , 200 8); see also RA R , Inc. v . T u rn erD ie se l, Lt d. , 1 0 7F
. 3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 7( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 )
. T he r ef o r e, we consi der o nl y whet h er the dis tr i ct c ourtm ay exer ci se sp ec ific jur isd ict ion ov er H em i.N o. 09

- 1407 7 1. M inim um Co ntacts W e fi nd th at H emi ’ s co nt ac ts wi th I l l i no i s wer e su ffi c i e n tt o s a t i s fy d ue pr o c e s s . H e mima i n t a i n e d c o mm ercia l w ebsites th roug h w hich cus tom ers cou ld p urch as e ci g ar et te s, c al cul at e th ei r s hi ppi ngc ha r g es us i ng thei r zi p codes, and c re ate acc ounts. H em ist ate d that i t would s hi p to an y s tat e in the countr y e xcept N ew York

. Thi s s tat em ent i s i m port ant fortwo r eas ons. F i r s t, He mi e x p r e s s l y e l e c t e d t o d o b u s i n e s s wi th t he re si dents o ff or ty- ni ne st ate s. A l though lis ti ng al lf or tyni ne sta tes by nam e w oul d hav e m ade a stron ge r c ase for j u ris d ict ion i n th is c as e, in as m u c h as it w ou ld have express l y s tat ed that H em iw an te d to do busi ness wi th I l l i n o i s r e s i d e n t s , th e ne t r e s u l ti s th e s a me

— He mi st oo d rea d y a n d w illing to d o b u sin es s w ith Il lin ois re sid en ts
. C

f. Neogen C orp. v. Neo G en S cree nin g, Inc ., 282 F. 3d 883, 89 1 ( 6th C i r. 20 02)
. A nd H em i, i n f act, kn ow in gly d id d o b u sin es s w ith Il lin ois res i d e n ts . In li gh t of th is, H em i’ s argu m en t tha t it d id n ot p urposefu lly avai li tse l fo fdoi ng business i n I l l i noi s r i ngs p a r t i c u l a r l y h o l l o w. Se cond, the f act that H em iexcluded N ew Y or k r esi dents f ro m i t s c us t o merp o o ls ho ws b o th tha tHe mi kne w that conducti ng business w i th res idents o fa parti cul arst ate co ul d s ubj e c ti tt o j ur i s di c t i o n the r e a nd a l s o tha t i t knew ho w to prot ect i tse l f fro m b ein g h al ed i nto cour t in any parti cul arst ate
. Due proce ss re quir es that “pote nti al defe nd ants shoul d hav e som e contr ol ove r

— and cer tainl y s houl d n ot be surpri sed by

— th e j uri sdic ti onalco nsequences ofthei r acti ons. ” R A R , Inc. , 10 78 N o. 09

- 1407 F.3 d at12 78 . Th at req u ire m en t i s s at isfie d h er e. W h ile H em ii s co rr ect that i ts cont acts, o r l ack ofco ntacts , with any o therst ate has no be ar i ng o n w hetheri t i s s ubj ect t o p e r s o na lj ur i s di c t i o n i n I l l i no i s , i t s e l e cti on nott o do b u sin es s w ith N ew Y or k d em on st ra te s t h at it s h o u ld ha ve f or ese en be i ng subj ect to l i ti gat i on in I l l i noi s a s a re sul t o fi ts ci gar ett e s al es to I l l i noi s cust om er s. H em i arg u es th at its sa les to cu st om er s, sp ec ifica lly the s al es to the s pec ial age nt o fthe I l l i noi s Depart m ent o f Re ve nue , c anno t co ns ti tu te the r equi r ed m i ni m um c o ntact s be cause the purchas es w er e uni l ate ra lact i ons by th e c u st om er s. SeeKulko v. Super io r C ourt of Ca li f. , 43 6 U. S
. 8 4, 9 3- 94 ( “ ‘ The uni l at er ala ct i vi tyo ftho se who cl ai m s o m e r el at i o ns hi p wi tha no nr esi den t defen dan t ca nno t sa ti sfy the r equi r emento fc o nt act wi ththe f or um S tat e. ’ ” ( q uot i ng Hanson v. D en ckla , 35 7 U.S
. 23 5, 25 3 ( 19 58 ))). C h ar ac te riz in g t h e s ale s a s u n ilat er al is m isl ead ing, how ever, bec au se it ignores seve ral of H em i’ s o wna c t i o n s th a tl e d u p t o a n d f o l l o we d t h e s a l e s . H e mi cre ate d seve ra lco m m er c i al, i nter acti ve w ebsi tes thr ough w h ich cu st om er s c ou ld p u rc h as e c iga re tt es from H em i. H em i he ld itselfout as op en to do b us iness w ith every stat e ( i nc l udi ngI l l i no i s) e xc eptNew Yo r k

. Af te r the custo m er s m ade thei r purchases o nl i ne , H em ishi pp ed th e c i g a r e t t e s t o th e i r v a r i o u s d e s t i n a t i o n s . I ti s He mi r ea ch i ng out to r es i den ts o fI l l i no i s, a nd no t th e re sid en ts rea c h in g b ac k, th at cr ea te s t h e su fficie n t m in im um c o nt ac ts wi th I l l i no i s th atj us ti fy e xe r ci sing perso nalj uri sdic ti on o verH em ii n I l l i noi s. W e w ish t o p oint out that w e hav e d one the en tire m i ni m um c o nt ac ts a na l y si s wi th o utr es o r tingt o theN o. 09

- 1407 9 sl i di ngs ca l e appr o ac h fir stde ve l o ped i n Zipp o M f g. C o. v . Z ip p o D ot Co m , Inc. , 95 2 F
. S up p. 11 19, 11 24 ( W
. D. Pa. 1997 )
. This w as not by m i sta ke. A lthough se ve r alo th erc i r cui ts ha ve e xpl i ci tly a d op te d the s l i di ng s c a le a p p ro ac h, see Ta m buro v. D w orkin , 6 0 1 F
. 3 d 6 9 3, 70 3 n. 7 ( 7th Cir. 20 10 ) ( co l l ec tingc as es ) , o urc o ur t ha s ex pr es sly de cl i ne d t o do s o . In Ta m buro , we sa i d th a twe w er e h esit ant “ to f ashi on a speci alj uri sdic ti onalte st f orInter net-base d cases

. ” Id
. T h at c as e d ea l t sp ec ifica lly wi th a n i nt e nt i o na lt o r t( de f a mat i o n) c o mm i t t e d o ver the Inter net a nd thr ough e

- m ai l . Long bef or e the Inter net bec am e a m ed ium f or defam ation, the Su p rem e C ou rt i n C a lder v . Jones, 46 5 U. S. 7 83 ( 19 84 ) , ha d de ci ded th e re l evantj uri sdic ti onalst andard f ori ntentionalto rt s that cr o ss s ta te l i ne s. W e co nc l ude d tha t “the pr i nc i pl es a r ti cul at ed [ i n C a lder ] ca n be appl i ed to c as es i nv o l vingt o r ti o us conduct co m m i tte d overthe I nter net. ” Ta m buro , 601 F. 3d at 703
. W e re ac h th e s am e c on c l u s i on h er e. Zipp o ’ s sl i di ng sc al e was a l way s j ust s hor t- ha nd f o r de te r m i ni ng w h et h er a d efe n d an t h ad es ta b lish ed su fficie n t m in im um co nt ac ts wi th a f o r um to j us ti fy ex er ci sing pers o n a lj u r i s d i c t i o n ov e r h i m i n th e f o r u m s t a t e . B u twe thi nk tha t the tr adit i onaldue proc ess i nquir y d escribed ea r l i eri s no t so di ffi cul t to a ppl y t o c as es i nv o l ving I nter net c ontac ts that cour ts need so m e s or t o fea si er - toap p ly c at eg or ica l te st
. See Je n n in g s v . A C Hy d ra u l i c A /S , 38 3 F
. 3d 54 6, 5 50 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( “[ A]l though t ec hno l o g i c a la dv a nc e s ma y a l t e r the a na l y s i s o fp e r s onal j ur i sdi ct i o n, tho se a dva nc es may no t ev iscerate the c o nsti tuti onall i m i ts on a st ate ’ s power t o exer ci se j urisd iction over non reside nt de fend an ts.”).10 N o. 09

- 1407 W e hav e on at least on e prior occasion m ad e reference to Zipp o ’ s sl i di ngs ca l e appr o ac h. In Je n n i n gs v . AC Hy d ra u li c A /S , we found that“[ t] he exer ci se ofper sonal j uri sdic ti on ba sed o n the m ai ntenance ofa passi ve w ebsi t e i s i mpe r mi s s ib l e b e c a us e the de fe nd a nti s n ot di r ec tingi ts b us i ne ss a ct i vi ti es t o war d c o ns um er s i n the f or um st ate i n parti cul ar . ” 383 F. 3d at 549- 50. W e s p ec ifical l y decl i ned to deter m i ne “what l eve lo f‘ i nter acti vi ty’ i s s uffi c i e nt t o e s t ab l i s h pe r s o na l j ur i s di c t i o n b a s e d o n the o perat i on o fan inter acti ve w ebsi te .” Id. a t5 4 9
. W e do not r e a d Je nni ngs t o s t a n d f o r a n y th i n gmo r e th a n t he acc ep ted n o tion th at a w ebsite th at p rovide s only i nform ation does not create th e m inim um con tact s n eces sary to e st ab l i shpe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r a d efend an t i n a p ar tic u l a r st at e. Je nni ngs di d no t ex pr es sly a do pt th e sl i di ngs ca l e appr o ac h an d do es no t pr ec l ude o ur dec i si o n t o dayr ej ec tingtha t appr o ac h.

2. R ela tedn ess Forthe cour t t o exer ci se speci fi c j uris dict i on o ver H em i, I l l i noi s’ s cl ai m s m ust a ri se out ofH em i ’ s con ta c ts w i th I l l i noi s. R A R , Inc. , 10 7 F
. 3d at 1277

- 78. Thi s r equi re m ent i s s ati sfied h er e. H em iso l d and shipped ci gar ett es to I l l i no i s r es i den ts , a nd Hemi ’ s ac ti o ns s ur r o undi ng th os e s ale s t rig ge re d Il lin ois ’s c laim s a ga in st it. E ve n if the s al es techni cal l y o ccurr ed i n N ew M exi co und er co m m er ci all aw, I l l i no i s’ s cl ai m s are no t ba se d o n the con tract between H em iand i ts custo m er s, but ra thero n the f act that w he n it so l d ci gar ett es to I l l i noi s cust om er s, H em i all eged ly v io lated I ll inois l aw and f ail ed to satisfyN o. 09

- 1407 11 i t s r e p o r t i n g o b l i g a t i o n s . T h u s , th e l e g a l l o c a t i o n o ft he sal es contr act i s n ot d i sposi ti ve ofthe perso nalj uri sdic

ti o n que st i o n.
3. Fa irness F i na l l y, j ur i sdi ct i o n o ver H em i i s o nl y pr o peri fe xer ci sing j ur i sdi ct i o n “do es no t o ffen d tr adi ti o na lnotio ns off ai r pla y a nd subst anti alj usti ce. ” Int ’ l Sh oeCo. v. Was hi ngt on , 32 6 U.S. 31 0, 316 ( 1945 ) ( i nter nalquotati on m arks om itted ). W e w il l con side r: [ T] he b ur deno n the de fen dan t, the f o r um S ta te ’ s i nt er est in a dj udi ca tingthe di spu te , the pl ai nt i f f ’ s i nt er es t i n o bt ai ni ng c o nv en ie nt an d effective reli ef, th e in terstat e jud ici al system ’s i nter esti n obtai ni ng the m osteffi ci ent r eso l uti on of [ th e un d erlyi ng disp ut e], and the s ha red i nt eresto fthe seve ra lState s in further i ng fund am entalsubst anti ve soc i alpol i ci es. Purdu eRe s e ar c h F ou n d. v . S an of i

- S yn t he l ab o, S
. A. , 33 8 F
. 3d 773, 78 1 (7th C ir. 2 003) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). H er e we do a ppl y a s l i di ngs ca l e te st : the wea k erthe defe nd ant’ s co ntacts with the f or um st ate ar e, the l ess l i k ely i t i s th atexerci singj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r tha t defen dan t is a p p ro p ria te
. Id. H o w e ve r, “[t ]h es e fa c to rs rar ely w ill j us ti fy a de te r m i na ti o n a g ains t p er so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n” be ca us e th er e ar e o th ermech an i sms a va i l abl e to the cou rt

— su cha s ch o i ce o fl aw a nd t r an sfero fv enue

— to ac c om m od at e th e va riou s in te re st s a t p lay

. Id. at 781 n. 10. W e c on c lu d e t h at ex er c isi n g ju ris d ict ion ov er H em i in I l l i noi s i s f ai r. H em ise t up an e xpansive , so phis ti cate d12 N o. 09

- 1407

com m er ci alve nture onl i ne. I t hel d its elf out t o conduct b u sin es s n at ion w id e a n d w as ap p ar en tly su c c es sfu l in re achi ng cust om er s a cro ss th e c ou ntry
. I t was sa vvy en ou gh to atlea st try to lim it its ex p o s u r e t o law su its in sta tes i n w hi ch i t fel t that the up si de of doin g b u si ness w as outweighed bythe ri sk ofl i ti gat i on. H em iwants to ha ve its cake an d eat it, t o o : i t w an ts th e ben efi t of a nati onw i de business m odelwith no ne o fthe exposure

. The r e i s no th i ng c onst i tu ti o na l l y unf ai r abo uta l l o wi ng Illino is, a s ta te w ith w h ich H em i ha s h ad su fficie n t m in im u m co n ta c ts , to ex er c ise p er so n al jur isd ict ion ov er H em i. To be sur e, d efend i ng ag ai nst a l aw sui t in I l l i noi s m ay prove to be a bur den on H em i, w hose physi calbusi ness o per at i o ns a r e l o ca te d e nt i r ely i n New M ex i co . Howeve r, I l l i noi s co urts have a st ro n g inter esti n prov i ding a f o r um t o res olve a di spu te inv o l vingthe s ta te i ts el f, a nd i t woul d b e m o stc o nv en i en t to the s ta te o fI l l inois ( an d l i kel y New M exi co) to ad j ud i cate a dispute base d on I l l i no i s l aw i n I ll i no i s co ur ts
. None o fthe o th err el ev an t factors w eighs con clusively i n H em i’ s favor. Thi s ca se i s st i l la t th e ve r y e arli es t st ag es o fl i ti g at i o n, a nd we c o nc l ud e o nly tha tI l l i no i s h a s e s t ab l i s he d a p rim a fa c ie c as e o f p er so n al jur isd ict ion ov er H em i in Illino is. M ov in g for w ar d , th e d i st ric t c ou rtw ill be a b le to e m pl o y o th ermech an i sms t o b al an ce the v ar ious co m pet i ngi nt er es ts i n thi s l i ti g ati o n. W e note the legiti m ate con cer n t h at “[p ]rem isi ng perso na lj ur i sdi ct i o n o n the ma i nt en an ce o fa web si te , wi th

o ut r equi r i ng so m e l ev el o f ‘ i nt er ac ti vi ty ’ be twe en the defe nd ant a nd co nsum er s in the fo rum st ate , would cr eat eN o. 09

- 1407 13 al m o stuni ve r sa lpe r so nalj ur i sdi ct i o n b ec au se o fthe vi r t u a l l y u n l i mi t e d a c c e s s ib i l i t y o f we b s i t e s a c r o s s th e countr y. ” Je nni ngs , 38 3 F
. 3d at 550. Court s s houl d be car eful i n re sol vi ng quest i ons about pers onalj uri sdic

ti o n i nv o l ving o nl i ne co nt ac ts to en su r e th at a d efendant i s no t ha l ed i nt o c o ur t si m pl y b ec au se the de fendant o wns o r o per at es a w ebsi te tha t i s ac ce ss ibl e i n the f o r u m s t a t e , e v e n i fth a ts i t e i s “ i nt er a c t i v e . ” He r e , we affi rm t h e d i str i ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usi on that Hem ii s s ubj ect to perso nalj uri sdic ti on in I l l i noi s, notm er el y b eca us e i t o per at ed se ve r al“ i nt er ac ti ve ” websi te s, b ut be ca us e H emi ha d s uffi ci en t vo l unt ary c o nt ac ts wi ththe st at e o f Ill in ois
. See N eog en , 2 8 2 F
. 3 d a t 89 0

- 9 1
. We m ake no co m m ent o n w h et h erH em im ay be s ubj ect to perso nalj uri sdic ti on in any othe r sta te.

I I I . Concl usio n W e A F F I RM the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni a lo fHe mi ’ s moti on t o di s mi s s f o r l a c ko fp e r s o na lj ur i s di c t i o n a nd R EMA ND f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs.

9- 14- 10