to communicate his message to Illinois. His meetings with Markarian were not merely fortuitous. Garoogian made the fraudulent misrepresentations in furtherance of a scheme to defraud an Illinois resident and, therefore, he intended to affect Illinois interests. The acts committed by Garoogian in Illinois, coupled with an economic injury in Illinois, lead to the inescapable conclusion that tortious acts were committed in Illinois within the meaning of § 2-209(a)(2). Since Markarian's fraud claim arises from these tortious acts, they provide the basis for establishing personal jurisdiction.
Having determined that one of Donald's co-conspirators committed tortious acts in Illinois, the next question is whether these acts may be attributed to Donald. The conspiracy theory of jurisdiction is not firmly rooted in Illinois jurisprudence. Markarian has not cited a single case in which the Illinois Supreme Court applied the conspiracy theory. Although the supreme court has not rejected the viability of such a theory in all circumstances, it has recognized that the invocation of jurisdiction based on acts of co-conspirators is subject to question. See Green v. Advance Ross Elecs. Corp., 86 Ill. 2d 431, 441, 427 N.E.2d 1203, 1208, 56 Ill. Dec. 657 (1981) (citing Chromium Indus., Inc. v. Mirror Polishing & Plating Co., 448 F. Supp. 544, 552 (N.D. Ill. 1978)). At any rate, the Seventh Circuit has concluded that the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction is viable in Illinois. Davis v. A & J Elecs., 792 F.2d 74, 76 (7th Cir. 1986); Textor v. Board of Regents, 711 F.2d 1387, 1392-93 (7th Cir. 1983). A defendant can be subject to the jurisdiction of an Illinois court under the conspiracy theory if: 1) the defendant was part of an actionable conspiracy; and 2) a co-conspirator performed a substantial act in furtherance of the conspiracy in Illinois. Textor, 711 F.2d at 1393.
Markarian easily satisfies this test. The complaint alleges an actionable conspiracy, of which Donald is a participant. The complaint paints a picture of a conscious plan on the part of defendants to engage Markarian's interest in the allegedly phony invention. The complaint describes how the conspirators each played a part in persuading Markarian that the invention was extremely valuable.
Markarian's fraud claim is premised on defendants' concerted efforts to procure his investment in the invention. The very first allegation under Count I puts Donald on notice as to the conspiracy theory: "From in or about April, 1989, through in or about June 1, 1990, defendants entered into a conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff of $ 1,650,000.00 by engaging in the following overt acts." First Amended Complaint, para. 8. Markarian then proceeds to enumerate acts committed in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. As stated above, Garoogian committed numerous acts within Illinois, all to promote the conspirators' common objective.
Markarian's allegations support the conclusion that the defendants shared the same conspiratorial motive and objective, and carried out substantial acts in Illinois in furtherance of that objective. These acts, which certainly would confer jurisdiction over Donald if committed by him personally, are no less relevant to the establishment of jurisdiction when committed by one of his co-conspirators.
Donald makes the argument that Garoogian's acts cannot be attributed to him in the absence of any allegations that Garoogian was acting as his agent. True enough, "the theory of jurisdiction based on the acts of a co-conspirator must be that co-conspirators are each others' agents." Green, 86 Ill. 2d at 440-41, 427 N.E.2d at 1208. Markarian's allegations, however, are not defective merely because he does not specifically use the term "agent." It is enough that the allegations show a factual connection between Donald and Garoogian's activity in Illinois. An act in furtherance of the conspiracy, as required by the Seventh Circuit in Textor, will establish such a connection. In a conspiracy, each participant is authorized by the others to commit acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 327 F. Supp. 1267, 1274 (C.D. Cal. 1971), aff'd, 511 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1975). By alleging that Donald and Garoogian were members of the same conspiracy, and that Garoogian committed tortious acts within Illinois in furtherance of the conspiracy, Markarian has properly availed himself of the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the tortious acts committed by Garoogian in Illinois subject Donald to jurisdiction under the Illinois long-arm statute.
Although Markarian has demonstrated that jurisdiction is proper under the long-arm statute, the inquiry does not end there. Markarian must also show that the exercise of jurisdiction would not violate due process. This issue does not detain the court long. Donald purposefully directed his tortious activity toward Illinois. Since he participated in a deliberate plan to defraud an Illinois resident, "he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court" in Illinois. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490, 100 S. Ct. 559 (1980); see also Club Assistance Program, 594 F. Supp. at 348. Maintaining this lawsuit will not "offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 90 L. Ed. 95, 66 S. Ct. 154 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 85 L. Ed. 278, 61 S. Ct. 339 (1940)).
Based on the allegations set forth in the first amended complaint, the court concludes that Markarian has provided sufficient facts to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over Donald.
B. Failure to State a Claim
As an alternative basis for dismissal, Donald argues that Markarian has failed to state a claim.
To state a claim for fraud under Illinois law, the plaintiff must establish:
(1) that the defendant made false statements of material fact, and not of opinion; (2) knowing that they were false; (3) intending that the plaintiff rely on them; (4) that plaintiff did rely; (5) that this reliance was justified; and (6) that the plaintiff was damaged thereby.