The Illinois Appellate Court just offered a good reminder of what connection a defendant must have to Illinois in order to meet the requirement of personal jurisdiction to sue in an Illinois Court. This is known as the “minimum contacts” rule which goes back to the oft-cited case of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
In the case of Robertsson v. Misetic, 2018 IL App (1st) 171674 (1st Dist. 2018) a Swedish investigator with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia sued an American defense attorney for making allegedly defamatory blog posts about the investigator’s honesty. The investigator sued in Illinois because the attorney had a Chicago office address and was registered with the Illinois Bar (ARDC). The attorney did not actually practice law in Illinois. The Attorney practiced law in New York and internationally, the blog was about a case in The Hague, The Netherlands, and the office address in Illinois was a P.O. Box solely for receiving mail. The blog post was written in New York and was not directed to Illinois residents, and there was no allegation the investigator suffered injuries in Illinois due to the blog post.
The Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, and held that “holding an Illinois law license and registering with our state disciplinary authority are insufficient to establish the minimum contacts needed for general jurisdiction in Illinois.” The Court also noted that there was no jurisdiction because the “contacts did not constitute systematic business activity, done with a fair measure of permanence and continuity in Illinois but, instead, were casual or occasional.”
“But the Internet reaches everywhere!” is what I imagine people saying. And indeed, Amazon will probably be treated differently than a local mom-and-pop in Wheaton who happens to have a customer in Wyoming because a Cheyenne resident found the local shop’s website and made an order. Likewise, a national website such as cnn.com or foxnews.com will probably be treated as deliberately reaching persons in Illinois more readily than a blog written in a family home in Salt Lake City. The Court noted: “[t]here is no evidence [the attorney] purposefully directed any allegedly defamatory statement or blog post at Illinois, had an Illinois readership, or committed an act directed at Illinois.” Ultimately, the Court will be looking at how a person markets oneself, how successful they have been at it, and whether the Illinois contacts (if they exist at all) are incidental and sporadic, or pervasive.
The Law Firm of David G. Sigale, P.C. was founded to serve the legal needs of the Chicago metropolitan area. Mr. Sigale has counseled and represented corporate and individual clients across the United States and internationally. He believes in protecting Americans from improper attempts by the government to infringe upon their constitutional rights. His firm services clients in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall and Will Counties, and as well as reviews matters in other locations on a case-by-case basis. Contact the firm for a consultation.
