Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. REDUCTION CO. v. AMALGAMET

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E.D


August 12, 1982

U.S. REDUCTION CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMALGAMET, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND PREUSSAG A.G. METALL, A WEST GERMAN CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Aspen, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff U.S. Reduction Co. ("Reduction"), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, filed this diversity action against Preussag A.G. Metall ("Preussag"), a West German corporation, and its subsidiary Amalgamet, Inc. ("Amalgamet"), a New York corporation, seeking damages for defendants' alleged breach of a sale contract.*fn1 This action is now before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and alternatively, Preussag's motion to quash service, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5). For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction will be granted.*fn2

This lawsuit arises from a contract between Reduction and Amalgamet for the purchase of 800 tons of zinc die cast scrap skimmings from Reduction's plant in Alabama. Negotiations concerning the contract began when Mr. Robert Blum ("Blum") of Amalgamet telephoned Reduction's Illinois office from New York concerning the possible purchase of scrap metals. As a result of the conversation, Blum traveled to Reduction's Alabama plant to inspect zinc skimmings. Upon his return to New York, Blum again telephoned Reduction in Illinois. Blum offered to purchase the entire quantity of zinc skimmings which he had inspected in Alabama. This offer was accepted by Reduction during the telephone conversation. Thereafter, Reduction mailed a sales contract to Amalgamet's New York office. Amalgamet then mailed its purchase contract from New York to Reduction in Illinois. The zinc skimmings were shipped from Reduction's Alabama plant to Amalgamet in Louisiana. Reduction has brought this action to recover from the defendants the unpaid balance on this sale.

When federal jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship, in personam jurisdiction is determined in accordance with the law of the forum state. O'Hare International Bank v. Hampton, 437 F.2d 1173, 1175 (7th Cir. 1971); Bodine's Inc. v. Sunny-O, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 1279, 1281 (N.D.Ill. 1980). In the instant case, the Illinois Long-Arm Statute establishes the guidelines for determining whether personal jurisdiction exists. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 17(1)(a), (b). That statute provides, in pertinent part:

  Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of
  the State, who in person or through an agent does any
  of the acts hereinafter enumerated thereby submits
  such person . . . to the jurisdiction of the Court of
  this State as to any cause of action arising from the
  doing of any such acts:

  (a) The transaction of any business in this
  State. . . .

  Until recently it was assumed that the Illinois legislature
enacted its long-arm statute with the intention of providing a
means of asserting jurisdiction over nonresidents to the extent
permitted by due process. Braband v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,
72 Ill.2d 548, 557, 21 Ill.Dec. 888, 892, 382 N.E.2d 252, 256
(1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 928, 99 S.Ct. 2857, 61 L.Ed.2d 296
(1979); Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673, 679
(1957); Ragold, Inc. v. Ferrero, U.S.A., Inc., 506 F. Supp. 117
(N.D.Ill. 1980). Last year, however, the Illinois Supreme Court
held that its interpretation of the state's long-arm statute is
not to be equated with changing federal standards of due process.
Cook Associates, Inc. v. Lexington United Corp., 87 Ill.2d 190,
57 Ill.Dec. 730, 429 N.E.2d 847 (1981); Green v. Advanced Ross
Electronics Corp., 86 Ill.2d 431, 436-37, 56 Ill.Dec. 657, 660,
427 N.E.2d 1203, 1206 (1981). After Cook and Green, it is clear
that even if the proposed exercise of personal jurisdiction meets
federal constitutional requirements of due process, it may not be
authorized under the stricter Illinois statutory requirement.
State Security Insurance Co. v. Frank B. Hall & Co., 530 F. Supp. 94
 (N.D.Ill. 1981).

Neither Amalgamet nor Preussag has an office, employee or representative in Illinois. Neither defendant is registered in Illinois nor has done business in Illinois prior to the events which have led to the instant litigation. No representative of Amalgamet traveled to Illinois to negotiate the contract. All communications to Reduction by Amalgamet were made from outside of Illinois. Inspection of the subject matter of the contract as well as plaintiff's performance under the contract took place in Alabama.

Reduction nevertheless alleges that defendants transacted business in Illinois within the meaning of Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 17(1)(a), when Amalgamet entered into a contract with Reduction, knowing that the contract would be performed outside Illinois. Reduction asserts that these two facts — Amalgamet's mailing of the purchase contract from New York to Reduction in Illinois and the unsolicited telephone communications by Amalgamet from New York to Reduction in Illinois — are sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts required to confer in personam jurisdiction.*fn3 Neither of these contacts, however, satisfy the requirements of the Illinois Long-Arm Statute.

Mailing a purchase contract to Reduction's Illinois office is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Amalgamet. Formalities of contract execution, including the mailing of the contract at issue, are not determinative for purposes of jurisdiction. See Peebles v. Murray, 411 F. Supp. 1174, 1179 (D.Kan. 1976) (mailing of contract forms does not equate transaction of business; Kansas Long-Arm Statute patterned after Illinois statute. Cf. Lakeside Bridge and Steel v. Mountain State Const., 597 F.2d 596, 604 (7th Cir. 1979). Under these circumstances, the Court is unable to conclude that defendants invoked the benefits and protections of Illinois law by engaging in this contract with Amalgamet.

Plaintiff argues further that Blum's various telephone calls into the state satisfies the Illinois minimum contacts test. Cook Associates, Inc. v. Colonial Broach and Machine Co., 14 Ill. App.3d 965, 304 N.E.2d 27 (1973); Colony Press, Inc. v. Fleeman, 17 Ill.App.3d 14, 308 N.E.2d 78 (1974). Each of the cases cited by plaintiff in support of this proposition, however, was decided under an interpretation of the Illinois Long-Arm Statute that extended jurisdiction to the limits of the fourteenth amendment due process clause — a standard no longer applicable since Cook v. Lexington, supra. Moreover, as the Court noted in Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Logicon, 487 F. Supp. 1245 n. 10 (N.D.Ill. 1980), each of those cases involved more than simply the initiation of contact with an Illinois plaintiff by the defendant. See also Artoe v. Mann, 36 Ill.App.3d 204, 207, 343 N.E.2d 647 (1st Dist. 1976). For example, in Cook v. Colonial, supra, the court found that defendant's phone call into Illinois was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction when the contract itself was to be performed in Illinois. Similarly, in Colony Press, supra, although the court found a sufficient basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant which initiated contractual negotiations and submitted a purchase order with an Illinois plaintiff, performance of the contract took place in Illinois. In the case at bar, however, performance of the contract took place in Alabama. In light of the mandate of the Illinois Supreme Court in the Cook and Green cases, the Illinois Long-Arm Statute, and the fact that the contract was to be performed outside of Illinois, the Court concludes that defendants' activities are not sufficient to meet the transaction of business requirement of the Illinois Long-Arm Statute.

For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. It is so ordered.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.