The H onorab le Frederi ck J

. K apala ofthe Un it ed Stat es  Di s t r i c tCo ur tf orthe Nor the r n Di s t r i c to fI l l i no i s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## 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. 08

- 3229 G C I U -E M PL O YER R ETI RE MENT F UND , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. T HE G OLDFARB C OR PO RA T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 07 C1174

—Jo e Bil ly Mc Dad e , Ju dge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 2, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AY 11, 2009

Befo re B AU ER an d F LA UM , C i rcui t Judges , a nd K APALA, D istrict Judge.  K APALA, D ist r i ctJudg e . On J un e 29, 2007, plaintiff, Gr a p h i c C o mmun i c a t i o n s I n t e r n a t i o n a l Un i o n ( GC I U) Em plo yerReti re m ent F und , fi l ed a com pla i nt ag ai nst2 N o. 08

- 3229

In re ci t i ng the facts, w e rea d the co m p lain t liber ally w ith 1 ev ery in ferenc e d raw n in f av or of pla intiffan d resolv e all fa ct u a l d isp u te s in fav o r o f p la in tiff. S e e C e nt
. St a t e s , S e . & S w. A re as Pensi on Fun d v. Phencorp R ei nsur ance C o. , 440 F. 3d 870, 8 7 8 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Pu rdueR es ea rc h Found. v. Sanof i

- Synthe l abo, S
. A. , 338 F. 3d 773, 782 ( 7th Cir. 2003)
. H ow ever, w e ac ce p t as tr ue any f a ct s contai ned in the def endan t’ s affidavits that re m a in u n r e fu t e d b y th e p la in tiff. S ee Fi rs tNat’ l Bank v. El C ami no R es . , Lt d. , 44 7F . Su p p . 2d 90 2 , 90 5 (N .D . Ill. 2 0 0 6 ). defe nd ant, The Gol dfarb Cor po ra tio n, se eking to co l l ect w i thdrawal l i abi l i ty paym ents u nd erthe Em plo yee Reti re m ent Incom e S ecuri ty A ct o f19 74 ( ER I SA), 29 U
. S. C. § 1 001 et seq
. Th e d istri ct cou rt gra nt ed de fend an t’s m oti on t o dism i ss pla i nti ff’ s a cti on f orl ack of per sonal j uri sdic ti on. Pl ai nti ffnow app eal s.

I. B a c kg r o und 1 Defe nd ant i s a Canadian com pany w i th i ts pri nci pal pla ce of busi ness i n Canad a. I t does not m ai n ta in a p l ace ofbusi ne ss , e m plo y ind i vi du al s, se rv e cust om er s, o r have a d esignated ag ent forse rv i ce insi de the U ni ted S ta te s. I n Apr i l 1 99 5, de fen d an t pur ch as ed 60 % o fthe s t o c ko fF l e mi n gP a c k a g i n gC o r p o r a t i o n ( F l e mi n g )
. F l e mi ng was a D el aw ar e co rpor ati on with i ts pri nci pal pl ace ofbusin es s in Peor i a, I l l i noi s. Defendant did notdi re ct o r c o n t r o l th e d a i l y a ff a i r s o f F l e mi n g . De fe n d a n ta nd Fl em i ng m ai ntai ned separ ate payr ol l s, bankacc ounts, and l eas es and fi l ed separ ate ta x re turns. F l emi ng, a s a co ns eque nc e o fthe c ol l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng ag r e e men t s o f i t s who l l y - o wne d s ub s i di a r i e s , wa s r e-N o. 08

- 3229 3

S ee29 U .S.C . §§ 10 0 2 (3 7 ), 13 0 1 (a )(3). 2 “For pu rposes ofd et erm ini ng w ithd raw al li abili ty, ER ISA 3 defi nes an ‘ em ployer’ as the bu sin es s thatdirec tl y partic ipate s in th e p lan , as w ell a s tho se entities tha t con stitute th e b u sine s s ’ s ‘ c ont ro l gr oup. ’ All en t i t i es c ons t i t ut i ng th e c ont ro l group i ncur w ithd raw al li abili ty. ” P h en c orp , 440 F. 3d at 873- 74 ( ci tat ion o m itte d). Plai nti ffal le ges thatdef endan t was an “em ployer” for the purpo se s ofthe as se ss m ent ofw ithd raw al liab ility b eca u se d efend an t ow ne d m or e tha n a n 8 0% intere st in F le m in g . S ee29 U .S.C . § 1 3 0 1 ( b ) (1 ); 26 C .F .R . § 1 .41 4 (c)- (2 )(b )(2)(i)(A ). quir ed to co ntribute t o pla i nti ff, a m ult i

- em plo yerpensi on pl a n. I n M a y 2 0 0 3 , F l e mi ngfi l e d fo r b a nk r up t c y . T here

2 after, Fl em i ng’ s a sse ts w er e sol d. Pl ai nti ffar gues tha twh e n F l e mi ng ’ s a s s e t s , wh i c h i ncl ude d i t s s ub s i diar ies , w er e s old , Flem in g w ith d re w from th e F u n d , see 29 U. S
. C. § 1 3 8 3 , a nd the r e b y i nc ur r e d wi thd r a w al liab ility , see id. § 1 381. Pl ai nti ffnow seek s t o col l ect f ro m de f e nd a ntf o r F l e mi ng ’ s wi thd r a wa l fr o m t he F un d. P rior to Flem in g’s d em ise , d efe n d an t h ad co n sid er ab le invol ve m en t wi thF l emi ng ’ s cr edi to r s. I n 1 99 7, F l emi ng en tered a l oan agreem en t w ith B an k On e. I n th e years th atf o l l o wed, F l emi ngde f au l te d o n the loan, a nd am en d ed th e loa n ag re em en t s ev er al t im es . A s a res u lt ofFl em i ng’ s co nti nuing fi nanci al di ffi cul ti es, i n 200 1, d e f e n d a n ti n c r e a s e d i t s o wn e r s h i p i n F l e mi n gt o 8 2
. 2 %. 3 I n M ar ch 200 1, thr ee m em ber s o fthe Go l dfarb f am i l y, M ar tin, S tanley, a nd Al o nna, wer e el ec te d a s F l emi ng offi cer s a nd al so acco u nted f or3 ofthe 9 s eat s o n i ts B oard of D irectors. A t tha t tim e, M artin an d A lonn a w ere4 N o. 08

- 3229 offic er s, d ire c to rs , an d sh ar e h old er s o f d efe n d an t. A lth o ug h n o t ano ffi ce r, S ta nl eywas a l so a di r ecto r a nd sh ar eh o l dero fde f en dan t. I n De ce m be r 2 00 1, de fen dan t pr es en te d a r es tr uctur i ngpl an to Fl emi ng ’ s l en der s, b ut th e le n d er s rej ec te d th e p lan an d d ec lar ed Flem in g in defa ulti n Feb ruar y 2 002. I n Mar ch2 00 2, F l emi nga nd Ba nk O ne a m en ded th e loa n ag re em en t t o re q u i r e F lem in g t o s ell tw o of it s b u sine ss es . O n th e sa m e day, de fen dan t an d Ba nkOne en te r ed i nt o a s ubs eque ntpr i vat e ag r ee m en t, c o nt aini ng a M i chi gan for u m -se l ecti on cl ause, wh i ch pro vi ded that w h en Flem in g s o ld th es e b u sin es se s, d efe n d an t w ou ld m ake a secur ed, subo rdi nated l oan to Fl em i ng f or $1

. 5 m i l l i o n. I n J ul y 2 00 2, the Go l df arbs met wi thBa nkOne r epr es en tatives in C an a d a b efore a sched uled Fl em ing board m ee tin g. A t t h a t m ee tin g, d efe n d an t in d ica te d th at it w o ul d n o tful fi l l i t s p r o mi s e t o i nfus e $ 1
. 5 mi l l i o n i nt o Fl em i ng upon the sa le of i ts busi nesse s. The Gol dfarbs no ti fi ed Ban kOne tha t th eypl an ne d t o u se som e o fthe profi ts f ro m the sal e o ftw o d ivisi ons ofFl em i ng to r estr ucture Fl em i ng and that t hey pl anned to conso l i date F l e mi n g ’ s P e o r i a o p e r a t i o n s a n d c l o s e o th e r s . Att he Flem ing board m e e ting, Fl em ing learned of d efend an t’s nego ti ati ons re gar ding the $ 1. 5 m i l l i on loan to Fl em i ng. Th e ot her l enders at the m eet i ng r ej ecte d the r est ructu r i ngpl antha t F l emi ngha d pr esented t o Ba nkOne earl i era nd i ns i st ed th atF l emi nghi r e ani nde pen den t con su lt a n t. O n A ug us t 15, 2002 , A lonn a G oldfarb tr av el ed to Pe o r i a, I l l i no i s, o n b eh al fo fde fen dan t. The na tu r e o fthi s tr i p i s unkno wn.N o. 08

- 3229 5 InSep te m b er 20 02 , Flem in g s o l d p ar t o f its P eo ria oper ati ons causi ng Bank One to dem and the $1. 5 m i l l i on or i gi nal l y pr om ised bydefendant. Defendant so ught t o condi ti on thi s l oan on Bank One pro vi ding add itional m oneyf orr est ructur i ng. A fternego ti ati ons between defen dan t an d Bank One , de fen dan t l o an ed F l emi ng $765 , 000 ofthe $1. 5 m i l l i on. Defendant al so a gr eed to adv an ce a n a ddi ti o na l $ 1. 5 m i l l i o n t o F l emi ngi fthe l enders fund ed Flem i ng’ s o perat i ons unti l J uly20 03. H o wev er, b etwee n De ce m be r 2 00 2 an d J an ua r y 2 00 3, the l en der s r ej ec te d F l emi ng ’ s pr o p o s a l s t o c o nt i nue o pe r a t i ng, s o ughtt o h a v e F l e mi nga nd i ts a s s e t s s o l d, gave not i ce o fdef aul t, and re tai ned bankr up tcy l aw yer s. I n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 3 , th e l e n d e r s , F l e mi n g, s o me o fF l e mi ng’ s s ubsi diar i es, and defendant nego ti ate d and executed th e F i fthAm en dm en t to the Lo anAgr ee m en t. I n the agr eem ent, the l enders agr eed to del ay exer ci si ng their def au l t r i g ht s i fde f en dan t r el i nqui sh ed co nt r o l o fF l emi ng to Georg e G iale n i os, wh o w as hi re d i n 200 2 t o devel op F l emi ng ’ s r es tr uctur i ngpl an. I n e xc ha ng e, de fen dan t woul d r ec ei ve 3
. 5% o fF l emi ng ’ s sa l e pr o ce eds a nd the lend ers an d Ba nk On e agreed no t to enforce d efend an t’s r e mai ningo b l i g a t i o ns a s t o the $ 1
. 5 mi l l i o n pr o m i sed unde r de f en dan t’ s M ar ch2 00 2 ag r ee m en t. One o fthe pu rpos es ofthe Fi fth A m en d m ent t o the Loa n A gr eem ent was f or t h e lenders to te m pora ri l y for ebea r f ro m exer ci si ng the i r ri ghts and ther eby p er m i t F l em i ng to d ev elo p , i m p lem en t a n d co m p let e a p ro gr am for s ale of Flem in g’s op er at ion s as a go in g con c er n . In e a r ly Febru ary 2003 , the G o ldfarbs resigne d from Fl em ing’s6 N o. 08

- 3229

T he r ec or d does no tr efl ec twhethe r the Gol df arbs al so 4 resig ne d as offi cers. The Ban kr up t c y Co de pr ov i de s tha ta t r us t e e “ a ft e r n ot ic e 5 an d a h ear ing , m ay . . . sell, . . . othe r tha n in the o rd ina ry cou rse ofbus i ne s s , pr ope rty ofthe e s t at e. ” 1 1 U. S. C. § 36 3(b)

. The Bankr upt c y R u les provi de thats uc h a s al e m ay be pri vat e or b y p u b lic au ct io n . F ed . R . B a n k r. P . 60 0 4 (f)(1). Bo ar d a nd de f en dan t ex ec ut ed ani r re vo cabl e pr o xy perm i tti ng Gi al eni os to vot e i ts shar es. 4 On Apr i l 7, 2 00 3, M ar tin Go l df arb r epo r te d t o de fen dant’s Boar d ofDir ecto rs t h at t h e ba nks had t ake n ove r Fl em i ng a nd he ha d been i nfo rm ed by the invest
m ent bankerthat the ori gi nal n ego ti ate d sal e w as not proc ee d in g, bu t h e w as n otot h er w ise i n f or m ed of th eir p ro gr es s. InM ay 20 03 , Flem in g filed for b an kr u p t c y . In July 2004, the ban krup tcy t r u s t e e brou gh t an ad versary pr o ce edinga g ains t defen dan t i nv o l vingm an y o fthe sam e t ra nsacti ons and events al l ege d i n thi s ca se. A cc o r di ngt o J o a nn a And e r s o n, a n a s s e tma na g e r f or Bank One w ho was in vo l ved i n the sal e o fFl em i ng, defen dan t i ni ti al l y di d no t i nt en d t o c o o per at e i n a ny w ay i n the bankr up tcy, r est ructur i ng o r liq u id ati on o f F l e mi n g, b u te v e n t u a l l y a g r e e d t o g i v e u p c o n t r o l d u r i ng the s al e pr oce ss. I n hernot es , A n d er son re m ar ked that th e lenders’ pla n w as “to set the path of how the sale w i l l occur i n the sal es proce ss bef or e contr ol i s t ra nsf er r ed. ” Ander so n n o te d tha t no ban k r upt cywoul d o cc ur u n ti l the l enders f ound a buyer

. There after, the pla n w as to file for b an kr u p t c y a n d “ru n a 36 3 a u c tio n .” 5N o. 08

- 3229 7 H owever, acc or ding to A nd er son, i t was notunti l after the F i fth Am e nd men tt o the Lo a n Ag r e e men twa s s i gned that Fl em i ng ac ti vel y s ought out buyer s.

II. P roc ed u ral H is tory I n J une 200 7, pl ai nti fffi l ed thi s su it seek i ng to co l l ect wi th dr awal l i ab i l i ty pay m en ts f r o m defen dan t, and the m at t e r wa s r e f e r r e d t o Mag i s t r a t e J ud g e By r o n Cu dmo re . I n re sponse to defe nd ant’ s m oti on t o dism i ss f orl ack o fp er s o na l j ur i s di c t i o n, the Mag i s t r a t e J ud g e e nt e r e d a R ep or t a n d R ec om m en d at ion rec om m en d in g d ism iss al. The M ag i st r at e J udg e r ea so ne d tha t al th o ug h de fen dan t had suffi ci ent m i ni m um co ntacts with the U ni ted S tat es, pla i nti ffwas unabl e t o show that i ts cl ai m ar ose fro m orwas re l ate d to defe nd ant’ s co ntacts . The M agi str ate J ud ge al so re com m en d ed that pla i nti ff’ s r equest f or furtherdi sco ver y b e deni ed beca use furtheri nfo rm ati on about m att er s s uch as A l onna Gol dfarb’ s t ri p to P e o r ia and de fend an t’s negotiations w ith Flem ing’s l e n d e r s w a s u n r e l a t e d t o p l a i n t i ff’ s c l a i m. T he distr ic t c ou rt accep ted the M agistrate Jud ge’s recom m en d ation an d reason ing, fi nd ing tha t plaintiff’s cl ai m s di d no t ar i se o uto fde fen dant’s m i ni m um conta cts w ith the U ni ted S tat es. The co urt f ound that defe nd ant’ s co ntacts with th e U n i ted S tat es ar ose fro m i ts i nv o l ve m en t wi thF l emi ng ’ s l en der s. Howev er, the cour t no ted thatthes e co ntacts di d n ot i nvol ve F l emi ng ’ s wi th dr awalfr o m the F und, whi chs er ve s as the ba si s f o r pl aint i ff’ s cl ai m . S pec i fi cal l y, the c o ur t f o und that defe nd ant had r el i nquished i ts contr olo ver8 N o. 08

- 3229 F l e mi ngwe l l b e f o r e F l e min gwi thd r e w fr o m t he F un d, and pointed out that Fl em i ng’ s l enders w er e the o nes that or igin ally so u gh t t o h av e Flem in g sold in Ja n u ar y 2 00 3. In ad d iti on, the d istri ct cou rt found t h at d efend an t’s i nt eracti ons w i th the l enders had no i m pact o n the c ol l ecti ve bar gai ni ng ag re em ents enter ed i nto by Fl em i ng’ s s ubsid ia ries. Th e d istri ct cou rt also d en ied d efend an t’s re quest forfurtherdi sco ver y, ag re ei ng tha t the l i m i ted d i s c o v e r y s o u g h tw o u l d n o tr e l a t e t o p l a i n t i ff’ s c l a i m.

I I I . Discussi on A . Per sonal J uri sdict i on This cour t r evi ew s di sm iss al s f orl ack ofper sonalj uri sdi ct i o n deno vo . Cen t
. St at e s , Se
. & Sw. Ar e as Pe ns i on Fund v. Re i m e rExpre s s Wor l d Corp. , 23 0 F
. 3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 20 00 )
. Pl aint i ffha s th e bur den o fde m o ns tr at i ngthe ex ist en c e o f p er so n al jur isd ict ion
. R A R , Inc. v. Tu rne r D ie se l, Lt d. , 1 07F
. 3d 12 72 , 1 27 6 ( 7th C ir
. 1 99 7)
. W he n a de fen dant’s m oti on t o dism i ss i s ba sed o n the subm i ssi on o f w ritten m aterials, w ithou t the ben efi t of an eviden tiary h ea rin g, th e p lain tiff n ee d on ly m ak e o u t a p rim a fa c ie c as e o f p er so n al jur isd ict ion
. Pur due, 33 8 F
. 3d at 782. “A ny d ist ric t co urt i n w hi ch a pla i nti ffbr i ngs a n acti on und erTi tl e Io fERIS A wil l have per sonalj uri sdic ti on ove r the defendant, i fthe defe n dant i s pro perl y s er ved and has suffi ci ent m i ni m um co ntacts with the U ni ted St ate s. ” P hen co rp , 44 0 F
. 3d at 875 ( al ter ati on a nd quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). These conta cts m ay be r el ated or unrel ate d to the f acts f or m i ng the basi s f or the l aw sui t de-N o. 08

- 3229 9 pend i ng o n w hetherdefendants ar e su b j ect to speci fi c o r ge n e r al jur isd ict ion
. Id.; RAR , 10 7 F
. 3d at 1277
. Genera l j uri sdic ti on i s f orsui ts nei therar i si ng o ut o fnorr el ate d to the defendant’ s contact s w i th the State , and is perm i tte d o nl y wh e r e t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n d u c t s c o n t i n uo us and syst em ati c gen er albusi ness w i thi n the f or um st ate
. RAR , 10 7 F
. 3d at 1277
. S peci fic j uri sdic ti on, m eanw hi l e, “r efer s to j ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r a defen dan t i n a s ui t ar i sing o uto fo r r el at ed to the de fen dan t’ s co nt ac ts wi ththe f or u m . ” Id. ( quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. I n e i th erc as e, the defen dant’ s co nduc t an d c o nne ct i o n wi ththe f o r um m us t be s uchtha t i t sh o ul d r ea so nabl y a nt i ci pat e be i ng hal ed i nto cour t there

. R eim er, 230 F.3d at94 3. Inth is case , pla in tiff d oes not cha ll en ge th e d istri ct cou rt’s fin ding that defe nd ant doe s no t hav e s uffi ci ent c ontac ts w i th the U ni ted Stat es to m er i t g ener alj uri sdic ti on. Thus, w e p ro c ee d to e x p l o r e w h et h er th e c ou rth as sp ec ific j ur i sdi ct i o n. To deci de w h et h erspeci fi c per sonalj uri sdic ti on m ay be e xerci sed, a cour t m ust e ngage i n thr ee dist i nct s teps: ( 1) i den ti fy the c o nt ac ts the de fen dan t ha s wi ththe for u m ; (2) an aly ze w h et h er th es e c on ta c ts m ee t c on st ituti onalm i ni m um s a nd wh etherexer ci si ng j u risdictio n on th e b as is of t h e s e m in im u m co n ta c ts su fficient ly com p orts w ith fai rnes s and j us tice; (3) d eterm i ne w hetherthe suffi ci ent m i ni m um co ntacts , i fany, ar i se o uto fo r a r e r el at ed to th e c au se s o fa ct i o n i nvo lve d in t h e s u it. Id. a t 9 44. N either p arty d ispu tes th e d istri ct cou rt’s i den ti fi ca tio n o fde fen dan t’ s co nt ac ts a s th o se de fen dan t10 N o. 08

- 3229 had w i th Fl em i ng’ s l enders , or i ts deci si on that those conta cts w oul d fa i rl y a nd j ustl y m er i t s peci fi c j uri sdic

tio n in s u its aris in g ou t o f th os e c on ta c ts . Ra t h e r , t h e s ole i ss ue o n a ppea l i s whethe r pl aint iff’ s cl ai m meet s th e th i r d c r i te r i o n a s o ne a r i singo uto fo r r el at ed to th e m i ni m um co ntacts defendant had w i th the U ni ted S tat es I ni ti al l y, we no te , a nd ne i th erpa r tyc o nt es ts , tha t defen d an t’s ow ne rship of a m aj ority ofFl em ing stock is i ns ufficie n t t o e st ab lish s p ec ific p er so n al jur isd ict ion
. Se ei d. at 94 3- 44
. I n R eim er, thi s co ur t no te d tha t “j ur i sdi ct i o n a nd l i abi l i ty ar e t w o separ ate i nquir i es. ” Id. at 94 4. As suc h, w e r eco gni zed thati n act i ons see ki ng withdrawal l i abi l i ty, ERIS A ’ s br oad “defi ni ti on o fco rpor ate affi l i ati on a s a n el em ent o fwithdrawal l i abi l i ty does not c onfer perso nal j uri sdic ti on on t h e ba si s o fsuch a ffi l i ati on. ” Id. Gol dfarb’ s co ntacts with the fo rum m ust be as ses sed se p ar at e from Flem in g’s
. Id. at 944 ( ci ti ng Keeton v. H ustler M aga zine, Inc. , 46 5 U.S
. 77 0, 78 1 n. 13 ( 1984 ) )
. A lth ou gh in th is c as e, at tim es d efe n d an t’s ac tio n s m ay h av e e viden ce d m o r e th ana no r m alpa r en t- su bs i di ar y rel at i o nshi p, we agr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthatthe proper f o cus o fthe a na l y si s i s o n de fen dan t’ s con ducta nd w h et h er p lain tiff’s cla im aris es ou t o f th at co n d u c t. See Kee t on , 46 5 U.S
. at78 1 n. 13. I n or der t o deter m i ne wh ethera cl ai m r el ate s t o or ar ise s o u t o f a p ar ty ’s c on ta c t s , t h e co u rt“c an n otsim p ly ag g r eg at e al l o fa de fen dan t’ s contact s wi tha s ta te
- no m att erhow diss i m ilari n ter m s o fge ogr aphy, ti m e, o r substa nce- as ev i dence ofthe const i tuti onal l y- re quir ed m i ni m um co ntacts
. ” RAR , 1 07F
. 3d at1 277. As s uch, thi s co urt has hel d that, to be re l evantf orpersonalj uri s-N o. 08

- 3229 11 dict i on, past conta cts sh ou l d ei therbea r on the subst an ti ve l eg aldi spute b etwee n the pa r ti es o r r el at e to the op er at ive fac ts of th e c as e. Id. at 1278
. Thus, “the act i on m ust direc tlyarise out ofthe spe c ifi c co ntacts betw een the defendant and the for um st ate
. ” Id. ( quotati on m arks om itted ). The par ti es ag r ee th at be ca us e th e o nl y c o nt ac t defen dan t h a d w i th th e U n i t e d S t a t e s w a s i t s i nt e r a c t i o n w i th F l e ming’s l en d ers, th e cru x of this c ase is w he th er de fend an t’s in vo lve m en t w ith Flem in g’s len d er s is su fficie n tly re l ate d t o p l ai nti ff’ s ca use o fact i on. I n or der t o answ er th at q u e s t io n, w e look fi rst to the elem en ts of plaintiff’ s c au se of ac tio n f o r w ith d ra w al liab ility . A n em p loy er is li able to the m ulti-em p loyer p la n i n th e am ou nt de term i ned to be w i thdrawal l i abi l i ty w hen the e m plo yer en ga ge s in a c om p let e o r p ar t i al w ith d ra w al. See 29 U .S.C . § 13 81 (a). P lain tiff a lleg es th at Flem in g c om p let ely w ithd rew from the Fu nd

. “C om p lete w ith d raw al” occu rs w hen an e m plo yer“( 1) per m anentl y c eas es to have an obl i gat i on to contr ibute und er the pla n, or (2 ) perm anent ly c eas es al l co ver ed oper ati ons und erthe pla n. ” Id. § 1383 (a). T h at be in g s aid , pla in tiff a c kn ow led ge s t h a t on ly c e r t a i n t y pe s o fs a l e s o fFl em i ng wo ul d h a v e c a us e d a “co m ple te w i thdrawal” as defined by § 1383( a)
. Fo r exam ple , pl ai n tiffpoi nts o ut thata sto ck sal e o f Fl em i ng would notnece ssa ri l y hav e ca used a co m ple te w ith d ra w al. See S an t a F ePa c . Corp. v. Ce n t
. S t at e s , S e . & Sw
. Are as Pe nsion Fu nd, 22 F .3d 72 5, 72 7 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ). In add i ti on, nei therfi l i ng f orbank ruptcy prot ect i on nor insolven cy is neces saril y a repu d iatio n o f obligati ons or a12 N o. 08

- 3229

That prov is ion ex em pts sal es ofas se ts f rom w ithd raw al 6 liab ility if the b u y ers an d sellers st r u c t u re th e sale ap p ro p riatel y and com ply w ith cer tai n reporti ng and b o n ding require

m en ts. C ent
. St at es, Se. & Sw
. A re as Pension Fund v. N i t eha w k Expre ss, Inc. , 22 3 F .3d 48 3 , 48 8 (7t h C ir . 20 0 0 ). Iti s a lso u nd is pu ted that defendan t had no role i n ei ther 7 ne g otia ting or en terin g the co llectiv e b arg ain ing ag reem en ts thatpr ovi ded f or Fl em i ng’ s s ubs i di ar i es ’ con tri but i ons t o the Fu nd

. c es sa tio n of op er at ion s. Cen t
. St at e s , Se
. & Sw. Ar e as Pe ns i on Fu nd v. B a sic A m . Indu s. , Inc. , 2 52 F.3d 911 , 916-17 (7th C ir. 20 01 )
. I n c o nt r ast, a s al e o fF l emi ng ’ s as se ts wi th o ut com ply i ng with ER I SA’s “ safe harbor ” pro vi si on, as pla i n tiff a rgues o ccurr ed her e, would tr i gge r com ple te w ith d ra w al. See 29 U
. S. C. § 1 384. A s such, the cause 6 ofact i on her e doe s no t arise o ut o fthe gener aldeci si on to s el l F l emi ngor fi na nc i alde m i se o fF l emi ng, b ut r a th e r th e a c t u a l s a l e o fF l e mi n g ’ s a s s e t s w i th o u tc o mply i ng with the “ safe harbor ” pro vi si ons. N ext we deter m i ne wh etherdefen d an t’ s co ntacts w er e s uffi ci entl y rel ate d to the c ause ofact i on. I t i s undis

put ed th atde f en dan t su r r en der ed al l of its c o nt r o l l i ng interest i n Flem ing in Fe b r ua ry 2003, m ont hs before Fl em i ng was so l d and w i thdrew fro m the Fund. Despi te 7 thi s f act, pl ai nti ffco ntends thatdefen dant’s co ntacts dire c tly r el ate to pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m . Pl ai nti ffar gues that defe nd an t’s f ai l ure to honori ts M ar ch 11, 20 02 agr eem ent with Bank One m ay have caused the l enders to be m or e a ggr ess i ve i n re cove ri ng the ir l oans and, thus, i ncre ase d t he l i kel i hood Fl em i ng would w i thdraw fr omN o. 08

- 3229 13 th e F und. Pl aint i ffa l so ar g ue s tha t de fen dan t’ s i m pr ude nt n e g o t i a t i o nwi thF l e min g ’ s l e n d e r s an d e ve ntua l a g r ee m en t to “aba nd on its i nv estm en t,” w ere con tributin g factors in the sale ofFl em ing’s assets , w h ic h ca us ed Fl em ing’s w i thdrawal f ro m the Fund. I n additi on, pl ai nti ffargues th atb y ne g o ti at i nga nd e xe cut i ng th e fi na l a m en dm en t to the l oan agr eem ent, i n w hi ch the Gol dfarbs resigned f ro m Fl em in g’s Board and defendant execute d an i rr evo cabl e pr oxy, defendant al l owed the re sul ti ng as setsa l e. H owever, we fi nd these c ontacts too at tenuate d to supp or t s peci fi c per sonalj uri sdic ti on. Fi rs t, the f act that defe nd ant’ s poo r fi nanci aldeci si ons i n re l ati on t o Flem ing m ay ha ve cau sed Fl em ing to garne r a m ore cont enti ous r el ati onshi p w i th i ts l enders does not necessar i l y m ean that F l em i ng would orhad to withdraw f ro m the Fund. See RAR , 10 7 F
. 3d at 1278 ( hol ding that th e f ac t th atde f en dan t woul d no t ha ve be enpe r f o r m i ng th e t as k t h at su b j ec te d h im to li a b i lity bu t fo r h is p re vio u s co ntacts with pl ai nti ffi n I l l i noi s was a l oo se causalco nnecti on that di d not provi de the basi s f or p erson al j urisd iction). Se c on d , eve n as su m in g t h at d efe n d a n t’s p oo r n eg ot iati ng ta cti cs c ontr ibuted to Fl em i ng’ s withd ra w al, thes e tact i cs do not “dir ectl y” r el ate to Fl em i ng’ s withd ra w al f ro m t he F un d. Al tho ugh, a r g uab l y, the wi thd r a wal w oul d not hav e o ccurr ed but f orthe fai l ure of d efend an t’s negotiat io ns , de fend an t’s negotiations w ere tem pora l l y f arfro m the actualwithdrawal, and sev er al i nd ependent deci si ons w er e m ade by the l enders between th e fa iled n eg ot i a t i on s a n d th e w ith d ra w al. Se eO ’ Connor v. Sa ndyLa neHot e l Co. , Lt d. , 4 9 6 F .3d 312, 322 (3d Cir.14 N o. 08

- 3229

I n r e s p o n s e t o th i s fi n a l p o i n t, p l a i n t i ffa r g u e s th a ta n e m- 8 pl oye r’ s pur e i nt en ts houl d no t i ns ul at e the m fro m withd raw al liab ility. H ow ev er, a s d iscussed ab ov e, l iab ility sho u ld n o t be co n fu se d w ith ju r isd ic tio n . S ee Reim er, 230 F. 3d at 944. M oreover, i t i s not def endan t’ s int enti ons that ar e deter m inativ e, bu t rath er its con d u ct r e l a t e d to w ithd raw al. Be cau se defen dantwas no ti nvol ved i n s t ru c t ur i ng the sale, i t s c ont a c t s d i d n o tr e l a t e to th e a c t i o n s th a t d i r e c t l y c a u se d F l e m i n g ’s wi thd r a wal fr om t he F un d. Al tho ug h An de r s oni nd i c a t e s tha tthe l e nd e r s m a y ha ve 9 decided how the s ale w ould occur befor e def endan t s urrendered control, the re i s no indicat ion def endan t was aware of this p lan or p articip ated in it. 2007 ) ( “But-f orcausa ti on ca n n ot b e the so l e m eas ure of re l ate dn ess bec ause i t i s vast l y ove ri ncl usi ve i n i ts cal cul ati on o fa defe nd an t’ s r eci proca l o bl i gat i ons. The pro bl em is t h at it ‘h as . . . n o lim iti n g p r i n c ip le; it lite ra lly em b ra c es ev e r y e ve n t t h at h in d sig h t c an logic ally iden tify i n th e cau sative ch ain.’ ”). Finally, i t is im p ortan t to reali ze th at even i f d efend an t’s c on ta c ts inc lu d ed an ac q u ies c en c e t h at Flem in g w ou ld be s ol d, th er e is no evi dence thatdefendant’s co ntacts i nvol ved the deci si on t o sel l assets withoutc ons i de r i ng t he Fun d ob l igat i ons . A s plaintiffackn ow ledge s the re w ere m an y way s F l emi ngc o ul d ha ve b ee n s o l d t o a vo i d wi th

d raw al. Plaintiffpoint s to no evid en ce th at d efend an t’s co nt ac ts wi ththe Uni te d S ta te s i nc l ude d a ny c o nt r ibut i o n o r i np uto n ho w Fl em i ngwo ul d u l t i mat e l y b e s o l d. 8 I n f act, A nd er son’ s no tes r efl ect that the l enders deci ded on wh at w as the b estpl an f orsa l e. 9N o. 08

- 3229 15 A t o ra l ar gum ent, pl ai nti ffas ser ted thatd efendant knew ofthe ass et sal e because i t agr eed to the sal e ofFl em i ng “a s a g oi ng co ncer n. ” A g oin g c oncer n i s “ [ a] co m m er ci al enter pri se acti vel y engag i ng i n busi ness w i th the expecta
ti on o find efi ni te continuance. ” B la ck ’s La w D ictio na ry 712 ( 8t h ed. 20 04)
. I n i ts bri ef, defendant cont ends that th is m ea n t t h at Fle m in g’s len d er s w er e g oin g t o s ell Fl em i ng thr ough ast ocksa l e a s o pp ose d to an as set sal e. H owever, a sal e o fas set s as a gr oup al so can be re f er re d to as a s al e ofasset s as a “g oi ng co ncer n. ” See Fl a. D ept. of Revenuev. Piccadilly C afet er ias, In c. , ___ U.S
. ___, 12 8 S
. C t
. 2 32 6, 23 30 (20 08 ); Phas on v. M e r i di an Rail Corp. , 47 9 F .3d 52 7, 52 9 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); E E O C v. G -K -G , Inc. , 39 F. 3d 740, 74 7 (1 994)
. M or eov er, the com pla i nt al l ege s that d efendant ag re ed to “per m i t a sa l e o f[ Fl em i ng’ s] ope r at i ons as a goi ng conc er n ,” s u ggestin g the assets w ere t o b e s o l d a s a g o i ngc o nc e r n. ( Emph a s i s add ed)

. Ac c o r di ngl y, whenc o ns tr ui ngthe e vi den ce a nd the c o m pl aint i n the l i g htmos t fa vo r ab l e to pl aint i ff, o ne c o ul d c o ncl ud e defendant w as aw ar e that an ass et sal e was poss ibl e. H ow ev er , th ou gh w e rea c h th is c on c lu sio n, su c h kn ow led ge in i tself is not enou gh to show th a t d efend an t’s co nduc t r el ated t o wi th dr awalb ec au se wi th dr awali nvo l ve s no t o nl y a s al e o fa ss et s, b uta s al e o fas se ts wi th

ou t c om p lyin g w ith th e s afe h arb or p ro vis ion s. See 29 U. S
. C
. § 1 3 8 4
. A n d e r s o n ’ s n o t e s i n d i c a t e th a ta tth e t i me defen dan t su r r en der ed co nt r o l o f F l emi ng th er e wa s no bu yer, a n d n o sale w as set to occ ur. Th us , de fend an t’s contacts re gar ding the F i fth A m endm ent t o the Loa n A g r e e men t c o ul d no t ha v e i nv o l v e d de c i s i o ns r e l a t ed to w i thdrawal because ther e had be en no deter m i nati on16 N o. 08

- 3229 of w h et h er a ye t u n kn ow n p ot en tia l bu ye r w as am en ab le to com ply i ng w i th ER I SA’s safe harbo r provi si ons. M or eover, th ree m ont hs pa ssed betw een de fe n d an t’s surre n d er of co n tr o l a n d th e s ale . A s n ot ed by M ar tin Gol dfarb, d u ring thatti m e the pl ans f orsa l e chang ed an d i n a ny e ve ntde fen dant was no t i nf o r m ed o fthe prog re ss ofthe sa le. A s s uch, thi s co urt cannot fi nd that d efendant’s co ntacts with the U ni ted S tat es w er e s uffici en tl y r el at ed to de ci si o ns r eg ar di ngthe sal e o fF l emi ng that tr i gge re d w i thdrawal l i abi l i ty. A s a r esul t, pl ai nti ffhas not m et i ts burden to m ake o uta pr i m a f ac i e ca se tha t i ts c au se of act io n i s o ne “a r i singo uto f ” o r “ r el at ed to ” defen dan t’ s m i ni m um c on ta c ts w ith th e U n ite d Sta te s. S e eRAR , 10 7 F. 3d at 1277
. A ccor dingl y, we affi rm the distri ct c ourt ’ s o rder gr anti ng defendant’s m oti on t o dism i ss.

B . D is c ov ery P lain tiff n e x t a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in denyi ng i ts m oti on f orfurtherdi sco very . P l ai nti ffar gues it sh ou ld ha ve been all ow e d lim it e d d is c o v ery re gar ding A l onna Gol dfarb’ s t ra velto Peo ri a a s wel l as i nf o r m at i o n abo utthe e xt en t o fde fen dan t’ s ne g o ti ations w i th Fl em in g. “W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on on di sco ver y m att er s f oran abuse ofdi scr eti on. ” P hen co rp , 440 F
. 3 d a t 8 7 5
. I n o r de r t o g a r ne r di s c o v e r y, “ [ a ] t a m i ni m um , the pla i nti ffm ust e stabl i sh a col orab le or pri m a f aci e showing of perso nal j uri sdic ti on . . . . ” R eim er, 230 F. 3d at 94 6. “F or ei gn nat i onal s usual l y s houl d notN o. 08

- 3229 17 be su bj ecte d to exten sive discov ery i n ord er to det erm i ne wh etherper sonalj uri sdic ti on o verthem exi sts
. ” Id. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otab u se its d i sc re tio n in den y i ngpl aint i ff’ s r eque stf o r d i sc o ve r y . I n i nv es ti g at i ng i ts cl ai m , pl ai nti ffadm i ts i t a l re ady had r ev iew ed ove r 6, 00 0 do cument s as wel l as th e depo si ti o ns o fthe G old farbs a nd A nd er son i n the bankr up tcy proce edi ngs. Des pi te thi s se ar ch , p l aint i ffpo i nt s to no th i ngi ndi ca ting th atde f en dan t w as i nv o l ve d i n de ci di ngt o i m pl ement an asset sal e of Flem ing th at d id not com p ly w ith E R I SA ’s safe harborpro vi si ons. Pl ai nti ffas ser ts th at i t i s cr uci al to fi nd o ut i nfo rm ati on about defe nd an t’s fi nal ag re em en t to s urr en derc o nt r o l o fF l emi ngb ec au se de fen dan t cou ld p o ssibly have su ggeste d struc tu ring i ts d ivestiture o f F l emi ng as an as se t sa l e. H o wev er, th er e i s nothi ng p lain tif fp oin ts to th at ind ica te s t h is w as a p os sib ility . In fac t, A n d er so n ’s d ep os i t i o n su gg es ts ot h er w ise . In ad d iti on, Al o nna ’ s tr i p o cc ur r ed l o ngb efo r e th e sa l e, a nd th e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n th a td e fe n d a n th a d y e tc o n t e mpla ted al l owing the l enders to contr olany sal e o fFl em i ng. M o r eo ve r, the a g r ee m en t m ak es i t cl ea r tha t defen dan t surr endered i ts contr oli n Febr uary2003 s o that Gial eni os, n otd efe n d an t, co u ld st ru c tu re th e s ale of Fle m in g. A d d iti onalev i dence pre se n ted bypl ai nti ffal so i nd i cate s that defe nd ant’ s inpu t was notco nsi d er ed in the sa l e. F o r e xa m pl e, A nde r so n s ta te d i n h erde po si ti o n i n the bankr up tcy case thatduri ng the nego ti ati on i n w hi ch defendant surr endered co ntro l, “the bankgr oup w anted a qui ck and cl earpath t o a s al e a nd fel t that a thi rd party woul d b e ab l e to b et ter im pl ementa s al e. ” I n a ddi ti o n,18 N o. 08

- 3229 A nd er son speci fi cal l y a cknowle dged that the Gol dfarbs w er e d ifficu lt t o d ea l w ith d u rin g t h is t im e p e r iod in ter m s o fge tti ng thi ngs a ccom pli shed and that i t t oo k a l o tmo r e t i me t o ma k e d e c i s i o n s d e a l i n gw i th th e m. A ccor dingl y, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re tio n in find in g th at fu rt h er in for m at ion ab ou t A lon n a’s trip o r the n e g o t i a t i o ns s ur r o un di ngde fe nd a nt ’ s s ur r e nd er ofco ntro l was unli kel y t o yi el d evi dence ofany conta cts ar i si ng o ut o fo r re l ati ng to Fl em i ng’ s withd ra w alfro m th e F u n d

. Com parei d. a t 94 7. As s uch, w e a ffi r m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d en i alo fpl ai nti ff’ s m oti on f orfurther disc ove ry .
I V . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FF IRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s j ud gm ent in f avo r ofdefendant.

5- 11- 09