sales agreement in New York and had no contacts with the State of Illinois in the formation of
the Agreement, The equipment was delivercd to, and installed in, New York.

‘The Agreement contemplated that al] payments from Golden Image to MLP would be
sent to Illinois. The Agreement contained a provision indicating that it was to be govemed by
Illinois law. Morcover, the Agreement apparently became effective when the last party signed it,
and it was last signed by MLP in Illinois. No services were performed in Illinois.

As mentioned above, MLP bears the burden to demonstrate that personal jurisdiction
exists over Golden Image in this Court. ‘The only facts alleged from which any reasonable
inference of forum contacts could be drawn are: 1) the existence of a contract with an Illinois
company; 2) the obligation to mail payments to an Illinois address; 3) an Illinois choice-of-law
provision; and 4) MLP’s final execution of the Agreement in Ilinois.

These same four contacts were present in Telco Leasing, Ine. v. Marshall County
Hospital, 586 F.2d 49 (7" Cir. 1978). In that case, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court’s holding that such contacts were insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the Due Process
Clause. Following the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Telco Leasing, we believe that MLP has
failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing jurisdiction.

MLP also attempts to establish personal jurisdiction over Golden Image by pointing out
contacts Golden Image had with the State of Illinois after execution of the Agreement and after
delivery of the equipment. Specifically, MLP argues that a single trip to Illinois by David
Bernstein, the President of Golden Image, is enough to confer personal jurisdiction. However,
Mr. Bernstein came to Ilinois in an attempt to resolve issues surrounding the alleged

malfunctioning of the equipment which MLP delivered. This single trip to Tllinois, arising out of



defendant, due process requires that the defendant have “certain minimum contacts with [the
state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.’” /d., quoting /nternational Shoe Co. y. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316
(1945). A court can acquire personal jurisdiction over a defendant through either general or
specific jurisdiction.

A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction in Iinois only when it is cither domiciled in
Tilinois, Euromarket Designs, Inc, v. Crate & Barrel Lid, 96 F. Supp. 2d 824, 833 (N.D. Ill.
2000), or when “the defendant has continuous and systematic gencral business contacts with the
forum.” RAR, Inc., 107 F.3d at 1277 (citation and internal quotations omitted). MLP has not
alleged that Golden [mage has any offices or employecs in {Illinois or that Golden Image has
continuous and systematic business contacts with Illinois. Thus, there is no basis for this Court

to exercise general jurisdiction over Golden Image.

Alternatively, a defendant is subject to specific jurisdiction when it has “purposefully
established minimum contacts with the forum State.” Burger King Corp, v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 476-77 (1985). In determining whether a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with
Minois, courts should consider whether the defendant could “reasonably anticipate being hauled
into court” in Illinois. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen, 444 U.S, 286, 297
(1980). “An out-of-state party’s contract with an in-state party is alone not enough to establish
the minimum contacts.” RAR, fnc., 107 F.3d at 1277.

The facts of this case as established in the complaint and affidavits submitted in
connection with the motion to dismiss show that Golden Image was approached by a Mitsubishi
salesman in New York who demonstrated the equipment in New York. Golden Image signed the

3


unexpected defects in the original equipment resulted in a swap of one defective printing press
for another. This action docs not suffice to confer personal jurisdiction over Golden Image in
Illinois for the purpose ofa suit against it under the original Agreement. The parties never
contemplated that Golden Image, in the course of performance under this Agreement, would
have any contacts with the State of Illinois expect for mailing its payments here.

It does not comport with fair play and substantial justice to say that Golden Image has
submitted to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts by virtue of post hoc communications and a single
in-state trip in an effort to repair a malfunctioning machine and with the goal of settling disputes
and avoiding litigation. See Jadair, Inc. v. Walt Keeler Co,, 679 F.2d 131, 134 (7 Cir, 1982);
Dispensa v. Aksjeselskapet Storebrand-Gruppen, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14737 at * 11 (N.D. Ill.
Aug. 10, 1983). We find that Golden Image has had minimal, isolated, subsequent contacts with
Mlinois to correct defects in the equipment, To hold otherwise would subject Golden Image to
suit in Illinois for making a good faith attempt to save the contract. See, INS Int'l Corp. v. M.L.
Métg. Co.,, 1993 U.S. Dist, LEXIS4729 at * 10-11 (N.D. Ill, Apr. 13, 1993).

In sum, we find that MLP has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of
personal jurisdiction over Golden Image. The facts alleged by MLP to support a finding of
personal jurisdiction are precisely the same factors that were considered and rejected by the
Seventh Circuit as patently insufficient for purposes of personal jurisdiction. Thus, there is no

basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Golden Image.


_, Mlautp Oider Fag (06/97)

No

United States District Court, Northern District of Lllinois

[) ame of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Wayne R. Andersen

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 3 C 8788 DATE 4/23/2004
CASE MLP U.S.A., Inc. vs. Golden Image Graphics
TITLE
Lin 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) ao Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Qa Brief in support of motion due _
(3) a Answer brief to motion duc . Reply to answer brief due_
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on __ set for _ ato.
(5) O Status hearing[held/continued to] [sct for/re-set for] on sct for _ at
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continucd to] [set for/re-set for] on set for ato.
{7) o Trial(set for/re-set for] on at_ -
(8) a} [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to _ at _
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) © FRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: Golden Image’s

motion to dismiss [8-1] for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted, This case is hereby terminated.
(ql) ff [For further detail sce order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. ‘Docunient

Numb
No notices required. anes

a!

number of notices

R26 2004

Hate dcketed,

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

vo | Docketing to mail notices.

vf | Mail AQ 450 form. boas

Copy to judge/magistrate judge,

courtroom,
TSA deputy's

+. initials

Nate/time received in
ventral Clerk's Office

sailing deputy iitals



CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reason, Golden Image’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction is granted. This case is hereby terminated.

It is so ordered.

i). LL&L

Wayne R, ‘Andersen
United States District Judge

Dated: AB


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MLP U,S.A., INC,
A Delaware Corporation
Plaintiff,

DOCKETED

APR 2 6 2004

v. No. 03 C 8788

GOLDEN IMAGE GRAPHICS,
a New York Corporation,

Wayne R. Andersen
District Judge

we wer we SS SY

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Golden Image Graphics’s (“Golden Image”)
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2). For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is

granted.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff MLP U.S.A., Inc, (“MLP”) is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in Lincolnshire, Illinois. Defendant Golden Image is a New York Corporation with its
principal place of business in Amityville, New York. Golden Image filed for arbitration in New
York under the parties’ sales agreement alleging that the printing press it purchased from MLP is
defective. In the arbitration, Golden Image seeks damages and rescission. A threc member panel

has becn selected to preside over the pending arbitration.

MLFP then filed a two-count complaint against Golden Image in this Court alleging breach

of contract and seeking injunctive relief. [n this action, MLP alleges that it entcred into a sales

ll


agreement with Golden Image for the sale of one Mitsubishi printing press and auxiliary
equipment. The complaint alleges that Golden Image has failed to make certain payments
required under the Agreement. MLP claims that Golden Image is in default of the Agreement

and seeks damages and immediate possession of the equipment.
Golden Image now seeks to dismiss MLP’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION

When a defendant files a motion to dismiss a case for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Lid., 107 F.3d 1272, 1276 (7th Cir. 1997). in assessing
such a motion, the allegations in the complaint arc to be taken as true unless controverted by a
defendant's affidavit, and any conflicts are to be resolved in favor of plaintiff. Turnock v. Cope,

816 F.2d 332, 333 (7th Cir. 1987).

This Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if it is improper under either the
United States or Illinois Constitution, Brandon Apparel Group, Inc. v. Quitman Mfg. Co. Inc.,
42 F. Supp. 2d 821 (N.D. Ill. 1999), Because “there is no operative difference between the limits
imposed by the Illinois Constitution and the federal limitations on personal jurisdiction,” /[yatt
Intern. Corp. v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 715 (7th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted), this Court will
address a single due process inquiry. Janmark, Inc. v. Reidy, 132 F.3d 1200, 1202 (7th Cir.
1997), The United States Constitution’s limitation on the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a
non-resident defendant is through the duc process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. RAR,

107 F.3d at 1277. In order for a court to cxercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident