The opinion of the court was delivered by: GEORGE LINDBERG, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WH-TV Broadcasting Corporation ("WH-TV") is a Puerto Rico corporation
that operates a wireless cable television system in Puerto Rico. Zenith
Electronics Corporation ("Zenith") is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Illinois. On February 20, 2002, this court
denied WH-TV's motion to dismiss this action for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Discovery was completed long ago, and WH-TV now moves for
reconsideration of this court's February 20, 2002 order. For the reasons
stated below, WH-TV's motion for reconsideration is denied.
In 1998, WH-TV sought a proposal for the sale of set-top boxes ("STBs")
from Zenith's Georgia office, for use in WH-TV's conversion to a digital
television service. Negotiations ensued between WH-TV and Zenith. It
appears that most of these negotiations took place in Puerto Rico and
Georgia.*fn1 In May 1999, WH-TV sent three purchase orders, for a total
STBs, to Zenith's Illinois office. The STBs, which were manufactured in
Mexico, were delivered to WH-TV in multiple shipments beginning in June
1999. WH-TV made payments to Zenith's Illinois office for the STBs
shipped pursuant to these three purchase orders.
In July 1999, WH-TV faxed its specifications for an electronic
programming guide for the STBs to Zenith's Illinois office. Also in July
1999, Zenith's Illinois office sent WH-TV sample logos for WH-TV's new
digital television service. WH-TV chose one of the samples, and sent its
decision to Zenith's Illinois office by e-mail. In August 1999, WH-TV
sent an e-mail to Zenith's Illinois office, with an additional inquiry
relating to the logo.
Beginning in August 1999, WH-TV reported problems with the STBs to
Zenith's engineers in Illinois, and requested technical support. Between
August 1999 and the end of 1999, WH-TV initiated numerous discussions
with Zenith's Illinois office regarding the performance of the STBs.
During that time, Zenith supplied several revised versions of software
for the STBs in an effort to correct problems.
On December 14, 1999, WH-TV sent a letter to Zenith's Illinois office
requesting 2,000 additional STBs by March 7, 2000. The letter also
requested technical support on a number of issues, requested additional
training, and requested a simpler remote control. WH-TV sent a fourth
purchase order, for the 2,000 STBs, to Zenith's Illinois office on
December 23, 1999. Zenith shipped STBs pursuant to WH-TV's fourth
purchase order in multiple shipments, with a final shipment of 500 STBs
delivered on July 10, 2000.
Between January 2000 and July 2000, when the final shipment of STBs was
delivered, discussions continued between WH-TV and Zenith's Illinois
office regarding the performance of the STBs. During that time, WH-TV
sent numerous e-mails to Zenith's Illinois office reporting
problems, as well as reporting the results of Zenith's attempted fixes.
On June 11, 2001, Zenith brought this action against WH-TV in the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging breach of contract for WH-TV's
failure to pay for the final shipment of STBs. WH-TV later counterclaimed
for breach of contract and fraud.
On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff
bears the burden of proving that personal jurisdiction exists. Central
States, S.E. & S.W. Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World Corp.,
230 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2000). In a case based on diversity of
citizenship, a federal district court sitting in Illinois has personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if an Illinois court would
have jurisdiction. RAR.Inc. v. Turner Diesel. Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272, 1275
(7th Cir. 1997).
An Illinois court would have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant only where it is permitted by state statutory law, state
constitutional law, and federal constitutional law. Id. at 1276.
Illinois' long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the limit
allowed under the Illinois Constitution and the Constitution of the
United States. 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c); RAR. Inc., 107 F.3d at 1276. Thus, the
court's inquiry collapses into a state and federal constitutional
inquiry. RAR. Inc., 107 F.3d at 1276.
Under the Illinois Constitution, jurisdiction is to be `"asserted only
when it is fair, just, and reasonable to require a nonresident defendant
to defend an action in Illinois, considering the quality and nature of
the defendant's acts which occur in Illinois or which affect interests
located in Illinois.'" Hyatt Int'l Corp. v. Coco. 302 F.3d 707, 715 (7th
Cir. 2002) (quoting Rollins v. Ellwood, 565 N.E.2d 1302, 1316 (Ill.
1990)). Since there is little guidance available regarding
the reach of the Illinois Due Process Clause, court typically look to the
federal Due Process Clause for guidance. See, e.g., id. at 715-16; RAR,
107 F.3d at 1276-77. Thus, the court turns to the federal constitutional
limits on jurisdiction.
Under the United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment limits a state court's power to assert personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. RAR. Inc., 107 F.3d at 1277. A
defendant must have "certain minimum contacts [with the forum state] such
that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of
fair play and ...