Page 27 - John Hundley 2014

Litigation Law Roundup

Sharp Thinking

No. 120 Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. August 2014

Minimizing “Minimum Contacts,” At Least

For Those That Are “Closely Related”

By Darren M. Taylor, dtaylor@lotsharp.com, 618-242-0246

Courts in Illinois may exercise personal jurisdiction over a plaintiff or defendant by enforcing a
forum selection clause against them, even though they were not a signatory to the contract containing
the clause, where it was closely related to the dispute such that it became
foreseeable that the non-signatory would be bound, the Appellate Court’s First
District has held.

In Solargenix Energy, LLC v. Acciona, S.A., 2014 IL App (1st) 123403, the
issue before the court was whether defendants who were not signatories to
contracts containing a forum selection clause were in fact bound by it
compelling specific jurisdiction. The court held that “where there is a
sufficiently close relationship between the non-signatory and the dispute and
the parties, it does not defy the non-signatory’s reasonable expectations that it
would be bound by the clause, just as the signatory parties are.”
Subsequently, a “non-signatory impliedly consents to the forum selection
clause via its connections with [the] dispute, the parties, and the contract or
contracts at issue” (emphasis added). Taylor

Seventh Circuit Holds Order Amending Pleadings Is Not Appealable,

Even When Amendments Extinguish Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

“Orders remanding a case to state court based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise,” the court held in Lindner v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, __
F.3d __, 2014 WL 3892539 (7th Cir. 2014), relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

Plaintiff filed suit in Illinois state court and the defendant removed to
federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Once in federal court, plaintiff
moved to amend his complaint to add claims against two key employees
of the defendant that resided in Illinois. After the court allowed the
amendment the plaintiff requested that the case be remanded back to
state court, which the court ultimately permitted.

Defendant opposed the proposed amendment on two grounds: (1) the
amendment was futile because any state-law claims against the individuals would be preempted by

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Sharp Thinking is an occasional newsletter of The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. addressing developments in the law which may be of interest. Nothing contained in Sharp
Thinking shall be construed to create an attorney-client relation where none previously has existed, nor with respect to any particular matter. The perspectives herein
constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation. To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal
advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.