Court Opinion

ID: 9860622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:27:53.651266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:11.919469
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, specially concurring: There are significant differences between a trial court’s resolution of a motion for summary judgment and its resolution of an objection to jurisdiction. The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to determine the existence of triable issues of fact, not to resolve those issues. Winnetka Bank v. Mandas, 202 Ill. App. 3d 373, 387, 559 N.E.2d 961, 969 (1990). In contrast, an objection to jurisdiction must actually be decided on the merits. Finnegan v. Les Pourvoiries Fortier, Inc., 205 Ill. App. 3d 17, 25, 562 N.E.2d 989, 993-94 (1990); cf. Kutner v. DeMassa, 96 Ill. App. 3d 243, 247, 421 N.E.2d 231, 234-35 (1981). A trial court considering an objection to jurisdiction may take evidence on relevant disputed issues of fact. 735 ILCS 5/2 — 301(b) (West 1996). A reviewing court may not disturb the trial court’s findings on an objection to jurisdiction unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finnegan, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 25, 562 N.E.2d at 994. It is sometimes said that the hearing on the defendant’s special appearance is the sole opportunity to defeat the jurisdiction of the court. 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 6.2, at 61 (1989) (Civil Procedure Before Trial). When a defendant loses a jurisdictional argument on a special appearance, concern has been expressed that the defendant will not have any right to appeal unless the appellate court grants leave to appeal under Rule 306(a)(3) (166 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(3)), because taking part in further proceedings will waive the objection. Error in ruling on the objection is not waived by taking part in further proceedings, however, where the objection is that the defendant is not “amenable” to process. 735 ILCS 5/2 — 301(c) (West 1996). If the objection is that defendant has not been properly served, that objection is waived by taking part in the proceedings. If the objection is that defendant could never be properly served, that objection is not waived by taking part in the proceedings. Where the objection is not waived it may be raised in an appeal at the conclusion of the trial, and it would appear that evidence presented during the trial relating to jurisdiction could also be considered at that time. The court need not determine, where jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of a tortious act, whether the act or omission is in fact tortious. If the defendant or its agent performs an act or omission that causes an injury in Illinois and the plaintiff alleges that the act or omission was tortious in nature, the jurisdictional requirement is satisfied. Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill. 2d 378, 393-94, 143 N.E.2d 673, 681 (1957); see 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 6.5, at 68 (1989) (Civil Procedure Before Trial). The addition of the concept of conspiracy to the concept of long-arm jurisdiction may broaden that jurisdiction. It is no longer necessary that the defendant or its agent perform an act or omission that causes an injury in Illinois; it is only necessary that a conspirator perform an unlawful act pursuant to and in furtherance of the conspiracy that causes an injury in Illinois. Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd., 164 Ill. 2d 54, 65, 645 N.E.2d 888, 895 (1994). Even though long-arm jurisdiction may be broadened, the tort of conspiracy has been recognized in Illinois. Adcock, 164 Ill. 2d at 62-63, 645 N.E.2d at 894. There seems to be no good reason to ignore conspiracies in deciding long-arm jurisdiction. The Illinois long-arm statute extends as far as the Constitution permits, and other courts have found jurisdiction based on allegations of conspiracy to be appropriate. See Textor, 711 F.2d at 1392-93; In re North Dakota Personal Injury Asbestos Litigation No. 1, 737 F. Supp. 1087, 1095 (D.N.D. 1990). A finding of jurisdiction in this case is a logical extension of the analysis begun in Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill. 2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961), that the distribution of a product with the expectation that the product may be used in Illinois gives jurisdiction to Illinois when an injury occurs in Illinois. If Charter had the expectation that the products of its alleged coconspirators might be used in Illinois, then there is jurisdiction in Illinois when an injury is caused by those products, even if Charter did not benefit from those products or even know of their specific distribution. See Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 481 (D.C. Cir. 1983), quoted in Adcock, 164 Ill. 2d at 65, 645 N.E.2d at 895. The question before this court is not whether Charter is Cape’s agent for service of process, or whether Charter is Cape’s alter ego. It is possible that Charter will be held liable in this case, as a conspirator, for the actions of corporations, completely separate from Cape, that sold asbestos in Illinois.