4

Tllinois.?
This action is set for a status hearing at 9 a.m.
October 25, 2001. at that time Alta Mere's counsel must be
prepared to explain orally (if he has not previously filed
something in writing) as to the basis on which this action has
been brought and should be entitled to remain here (contentions
that must be advanced in objective good faith, if counsel are to
comply with the obligations of every lawyer under Fed. R. Civ. P.
CMO CC a clases
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

li(b)).

Date: October 17, 2001

? It may be said Parenthetically that even were a different

answer to be given to the two questions just posed by the text,
it would seem almost certain that a 28 U.S.C, §1404(a) motion
would trigger a transfer of this action to the District of New
Mexico.


Minute Order Fort (06/97)

ms United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois
Name of Assigned Judge ; Sitting Judge if Other
ae Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 7913 DATE 10/19/2001
CASE Alta Mere Industries vs. Patrick J. Aguilar
TITLE
{in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented,]

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) QO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) im Brief in support of motion due

(3) a Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer brief. due.

(4) o Ruling/Hearing on setfor at

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ at

(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on___at

(8) im [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to ____at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OGeneralRule2! CFRCP4I(a\(1) O FRCP41(a)(2),

(10) +f [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. This action is set for a status hearing at 9 a.m.

October 25, 2001. At that time Alta Mere’s counsel must be prepared to explain orally (if he has not
previously filed something in writing) as to the basis on which this action has been brought and should
be entitled to remain here.

(i) @

No notices required, advised in open court,

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

Document
Number

No notices required
‘4 number of notices

OCT 19 WH

| Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone,

date docketed
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. ® docking Aeputyinitats
Copy to judge/magistrate judge
vongr2001

courtroom date msiled notice

SN depaty’s
initials

ype 18 ba S40

SN

Date/time received in

central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ALTA MERE INDUSTRIES, INC., Ma
[Gr 4 ”]

Plaintiff, 9209)

)
)
)
)
Vv. ) No. 01 ¢ 7913
)

PATRICK J. AGUILAR, et al., )

)

)

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Alta Mere Industries, Ine. (“Alta Mere”) has just sued
Patrick and Leslie! Aguilar (collectively “Aguilars”) in a two-
count Complaint arising out of the asserted breaches of an
August 17, 1994 franchise agreement (“Agreement”) between AMI
Franchising, Inc. (“AMI,” Alta Mere's predecessor in interest) as
franchisor and Aguilars as franchisee. Count I sounds in
asserted trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, while Count
II is a breach of contract claim. Because the Complaint is
obviously troublesome in important respects, this memorandum
order is issued sua sponte to require Alta Mere to explain how
and why this action belongs in this judicial district.

It is plain that the current Complaint is computer-generated
(or is otherwise untouched by human hands or the human mind) in
some respects--Count II's Prayer for relief asks for Judgment in

favor of Alta Mere and against David Glenn Cox (who is apparently

» Alta Mere's Complaint has misspelled that first name,

which is shown as “Lesli” in the underlying documentation.


A

a target of some other similar lawsuit by Alta Mere). But what
is clearly problematic is the fact that the Agreement was between
AMI, a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in
that state, and Aguilars as New Mexico residents who obtained a
franchise to own and operate an Alta Mere shop in Albuquerque.
It is scarcely surprising, then, that Section 17H of the detailed
34-page printed Agreement (exclusive of exhibits), a form that
was obviously prepared by franchisor AMI, stated that except to
the extent covered by federal law, the franchise and the parties'
relationship would be governed by New Mexico law (the location of
the franchise), and it then continued this way:

Franchisee agrees that Franchisor may institute any

action against Franchisee arising out of or relating to

this Agreement in any sate [sic] or federal court of

general jurisdiction in Tarrant County, Texas and

Franchisee irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of

such courts and waives any objection he may have to

either the jurisdiction or venue of such courts.

That being the case, more than considerable doubt is cast
upon Alta Mere's boilerplate allegation in Complaint 46 “that a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred
in this district”--an effort to Support the existence of venue
here. Indeed, given the manner in which franchise operations are

generally conducted, it also appears highly questionable that

personal jurisdiction may be asserted over Aguilars here in