IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LIAM LEFEBVRE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY,

 Defendants.

Case No. 20 C 4928

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff, a former student at Washington University in

St. Louis, Missouri, was expelled and denied a diploma even though 

he had completed four years of study and had met the University’s 

criteria for graduation. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–4, Notice of Removal, Ex. A, 

Dkt. No. 1-1.) As a result, he filed this suit against the

University for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust 

enrichment, and negligence. Washington University has moved to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

According to the complaint, Washington University provides 

educational services to its students at its campus and principal 

place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. (Id. ¶ 4.) The student 

body is cosmopolitan and comes from all fifty states and several 

foreign countries. (Copeland Decl. ¶ 5, Mem., Ex. B, Dkt. No. 16-

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 26 Filed: 01/20/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:250
- 2 -

2.) The University actively recruits students by sending 

representatives to various states including Illinois. (Id. ¶ 4; 

Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff was actively recruited by Washington

University’s representatives, was offered financial incentives to 

enroll, and was promised a degree upon completion of the required 

course work. (Compl. ¶¶ 6–9.) Over his four years as a student,

Plaintiff paid all fees and tuition, and completed the required 

course work. (Id. ¶ 11.) Despite this, Plaintiff was informed on 

June 4, 2020, that the University did not intend to award him an 

undergraduate degree or issue him a diploma. (Id. ¶ 12.) This 

injury is the basis for Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Washington University claims this Court lacks general 

jurisdiction over it because, as Plaintiff admits, its principal 

place of incorporation and business is St. Louis, Missouri. (Id.

¶ 4.) Plaintiff responds arguing that the University’s contacts 

with Illinois are so substantial to make it “at home” in Illinois. 

It provides free education to impoverished students from Southern 

Illinois. (Pl. Decl. ¶ 11, Opp’n, Ex. A, Dkt. No. 18-1.) It also 

provides health care in Illinois through its alter ego, an Illinois 

corporation named Washington University Physicians in Illinois, 

Inc. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Washington University claims this Court lacks specific 

jurisdiction over it because the actions in support of his claims 

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 26 Filed: 01/20/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:251
- 3 -

upon which Plaintiff relies all occurred in St. Louis, Missouri.

Plaintiff responds that portions of the contract at issue were 

performed in Illinois, such as the oral promise of a diploma if he 

completed the required course work and the mailing from Illinois 

of his written acceptance. He also argues, although his contract 

required Washington University to provide him education in 

Missouri, the University unilaterally amended the contract when it

kicked him off campus in his senior year, forcing him to complete 

his course work and final exams remotely in Illinois.

II. DISCUSSION

Under the Constitutions of the United States and Illinois, 

the ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident 

defendant is extremely limited. There are two types of personal 

jurisdiction, general and specific. Specific jurisdiction is case 

specific, i.e., the cause of action must arise from or relate to 

the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. RAR, Inc. v. Turner 

Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272, 1277 (7th Cir. 1997). General 

jurisdiction allows the pursuit of a claim “neither arising out of 

nor related to the defendant's contacts and it is permitted only 

where the defendant has ‘continuous and systematic general 

business contacts’ with the forum.” Id. (citing Helicopteros 

Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8

(1984)). Plaintiff acknowledges that his best argument is to rely 

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 26 Filed: 01/20/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:252
- 4 -

on general jurisdiction because his ejection from campus and 

Washington University’s refusal to give him a diploma both occurred 

in Missouri. 

General jurisdiction was explicitly cabined when the United 

States Supreme Court, in Daimler AG v. Bauman, held that general 

jurisdiction does not rest on “whether a foreign corporation’s inforum contacts can be said to be in some sense ‘continuous and 

systematic.’” 571 U.S. 117, 139 (2014). Instead the Due Process 

Clause allows a court to exercise general jurisdiction over a 

foreign corporation only when “its affiliations with the state are 

so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render it essentially at home 

in the forum State.’” Id. at 127. 

The Illinois Supreme Court elucidated this requirement in 

Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc., 90 

N.E.3d 440 (Ill. 2017). In that case, the defendant was in the 

business of operating warehouses, including a building in 

Illinois. Id. at 442. The actual conduct giving rise to plaintiff’s 

cause of action, however, occurred in one of defendant’s warehouses 

located in Michigan. Id. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the 

fact that a corporation can operate in many different states does 

not make it at home in any of them other than its home state. Id.

at 446. Here, Plaintiff argues that Washington operates as a 

healthcare provider in Illinois. Washington University’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 26 Filed: 01/20/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:253
- 5 -

healthcare services does not make Illinois rather than Missouri,

where the University operations gave rise to the Plaintiff’s 

claims, its home. Washington University’s main business is 

education, not health care, and as a result its connection with 

Illinois is even more attenuated than the defendant in Interstate 

Warehousing.

The case of Wesly v. National Hemophilia Foundation, 77 N.E.3d 

746 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017), involved a similar jurisdictional 

question. Plaintiff sought to sue Georgetown University in 

Illinois for tortious conduct that occurred when a Georgetown 

Adjunct Professor posted alleged defamatory comments about the 

plaintiff on a website. Id. at 748. Plaintiff sought to obtain 

general jurisdiction over Georgetown based on its recruitment

activities in Illinois and its regular and extensive fundraising 

performed by its large contingent of alumni that reside in 

Illinois. Id. at 750. While the Illinois Appellate Court noted 

that this was a case of first impression in Illinois, many other 

courts in other neighboring states have held that a university 

cannot be deemed at home in a forum merely because it engages in 

the sort of minimal and sporadic contact with the state that is 

common to all national universities. Id. at 752. The court went on 

to hold it therefore lacked general jurisdiction over Georgetown.

Id. at 753. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 26 Filed: 01/20/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:254
- 6 -

Plaintiff’s argument for specific jurisdiction is also 

unsuccessful. The fact that he (like millions of other college 

students impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic) was forced to take his 

classes remotely as a result of being kicked off the campus, is 

not relevant to his claims before the Court. Plaintiff’s claims

stem from being denied a degree and a diploma after completing all 

requirements to receive one. This decision was both made and 

enforced in Missouri. Plaintiff acknowledges these facts in his 

brief: “Defendant may have decided not to award Plaintiff a diploma 

in St. Louis, but Plaintiff only learned this decision when he 

received the letter in June 2020 mailed to his Illinois residence

. . .” (Opp’n at 9.) In summary, the product “sold” by Washington 

to Plaintiff was an education, the educational teaching occurred 

in Missouri regardless of whether Plaintiff heard it in Missouri 

or in Illinois, and the University’s decision not to award him a 

degree for his efforts occurred in Missouri. Therefore, there is 

neither specific nor general jurisdiction over Washington 

University in this matter.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

for lack of Jurisdiction is granted. The case is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 26 Filed: 01/20/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:255
- 7 -

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge

United States District Court

Dated: 1/20/2021

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 26 Filed: 01/20/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:256