The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.
Before the Court is the defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction. Despite the setting of a briefing
schedule under which plaintiff was to respond to the defendant's
motion by a date now passed, plaintiff has filed nothing and
apparently has chosen not to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
For the reasons stated herein, defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
Under the Illinois Long-Arm Statute:
(a) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident
of this state, who in person or through an agent does
any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby
submits such person, and, if an individual, his
personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the
courts of this state as to any cause of action
arising from the doing of such acts:
(1) the transaction of any business within this
state . . .
(c) Only causes of action arising from acts
enumerated herein may be asserted against a defendant
in an action in which jurisdiction over him or her is
based upon this Section.
Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110 ¶ 2-209 (1983).
In the case at bar it is apparent that no minimum contacts
exist sufficient for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over
Dough Delight as no substantial contacts between the defendant
and the forum state are apparent. Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen,
444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980);
International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310; 66 S.Ct. 154,
90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).
In a case quite similar to the matter now pending before the
Court, the Illinois Supreme Court held that in personam
jurisdiction did not exist where a distributor sued an
out-of-state manufacturer on a contract under which the
manufacturer accepted orders and delivered the product for
shipment in New York despite the fact that the contract was
negotiated in Illinois. Grobark v. Addo Machine Company,
16 Ill.2d 426, 158 N.E.2d 73 (1959). Similarly, in Sportmart, Inc.
v. Frisch, 537 F. Supp. 1254 (N.D.Ill. 1982), Judge Aspen ruled
that the Court had no jurisdiction over an Italian manufacturer
merely because its U.S. distributor transacted business in
Illinois where the title to the goods and risk of loss passed in
In the case at bar, plaintiff was an independent distributor
which received and took title to the goods in Canada. Defendant
had no contacts with Illinois and cannot be held to have had any
merely because plaintiff, an entity with which defendant had a
distribution agreement but did not do business on defendant's
behalf, was present in Illinois.
Given the present record in this case, due process would be
violated by requiring Dough Delight to defend this action in
Illinois because Dough Delight could not reasonably believe that
it would be sued in Illinois. Dough Delight performed all of its
activity under the contract in Canada. The products manufactured
by Dough Delight under the agreement were delivered to Eagles in
Canada and shipped by Eagles into Illinois. Dough Delight
maintains no offices or employees in Illinois. In such
circumstances, it would offend traditional notions of fair play
to expect ...