Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180801_0001604.NIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:23:34+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Muir v. Nature's Bounty De, Inc.
Muir v. Nature's Bounty De, Inc.
NATURE'S BOUNTY DE, INC., REXALL SUNDOWN, LLC, and PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., Defendants.
This is Plaintiff Michael Muir's third attempt to plead individual and class allegations of consumer fraud and unjust enrichment arising from his and proposed class members' purchases of the dietary supplement St. John's Wort. The court dismissed Muir's original complaint insofar as it asserted claims against manufacturers whose products Muir did not purchase. See Muir v. NBTY, Inc., No. 15 C 9835, 2016 WL 5234596 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2016). Muir amended his complaint to name only one manufacturer-Nature's Bounty, Inc.-as a defendant, but the court dismissed both his nationwide class allegations (due to relevant conflicts in state unjust-enrichment laws) and his multi-state class allegations (due to Muir's lack of standing to assert claims under the consumer fraud statutes of states where he did not purchase St. John's Wort). See Muir v. Nature's Bounty, Inc., No. 15 C 9835, 2017 WL 4310650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2017).
In a Second Amended Class Complaint , four new plaintiffs now join Muir in seeking damages-individually and on behalf of a multi-state class of certain persons who purchased St. John's Wort in Illinois, California, Michigan, or Pennsylvania-from Nature's Bounty and two additional corporate Defendants. In the alternative, Plaintiffs propose four subclasses of persons who purchased St. John's Wort in one of each of these states.
Defendants have moved to dismiss all the claims in the Second Amended Class Complaint except those that Muir himself asserts under Illinois law. For the reasons explained below, Defendants' motion  is granted in part and denied in part. The individual claims of the non-Illinois Plaintiffs are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants' motion is otherwise denied.
Defendants first argue that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over any of them with regard to the claims asserted by the non-Illinois Plaintiffs. The doctrine of personal jurisdiction governs the scope of states' authority to bind non-resident defendants to the judgments of their courts. Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014). Unless a federal statute provides otherwise, a federal court's jurisdiction over a defendant's person is determined by the law of the state in which it sits. Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2010). Illinois law permits a court to “exercise jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Brook v. McCormley, 873 F.3d 549, 552 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c)). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction, though they “need only make out a prima facie case” where the court has not held an evidentiary hearing on the subject. Northern Grain Marketing, LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 2014). In considering whether Plaintiffs have met this burden, the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true and resolves factual disputes in Plaintiffs' favor. Id.
“The nature of the defendant's contacts with the forum state determines the propriety of personal jurisdiction and also its scope.” Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 701. Where a defendant is not physically present in the forum state, but the defendant's contacts with that state are “so ‘continuous and systematic' as to render [the defendant] essentially at home” there, courts in the forum state have “general jurisdiction . . . to hear any and all claims” against that defendant. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). Even if the defendant is not “essentially at home” in the forum state, a court may assert “specific jurisdiction” if the defendant's “suit-related conduct . . . create[s] a substantial connection with the forum State.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. at 1121. Specific jurisdiction is available “whenever the cause of action arises out of or relates to the contacts between the defendant and the forum.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 427 (1984).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.