United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
FREDERICK J. KAPALA District Judge
partial motion to dismiss  is granted.
LDGP, LLC, d/b/a Hartsough Dermatology (“LDGP”),
initially brought suit against defendant, Cynosure, Inc.
(“Cynosure”), advancing claims having to do with
the sale of tattoo removal machines by defendant to
plaintiff. Numerous other plaintiffs were added in the first
amended complaint. LDGP was omitted from the second amended
complaint, operative here, and thus terminated from the case,
while more plaintiffs were added. The operative complaint
contains the following Counts: (I) Negligent
Misrepresentation, (II) Fraudulent/Intentional
Misrepresentation, (III) Fraud by Omission, (IV) Breach of
Contract- Breach of Express Warranties Under the Uniform
Commercial Code, (V) Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act, (VI) Violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, (VII)
Violation of the California False Advertising Law, (VIII)
Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, (IX)
Deceit under California Civil Code § 1710, (X) Deceit
under Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law. Before the court is defendant's partial
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the following
reasons, the court dismisses Count I; the claims brought
exclusively by nonresident plaintiffs, comprising Counts VI,
VII, VIII, IX, and X; and all remaining claims with respect
to nonresident plaintiffs.
purchased tattoo removal machines from defendant and
subsequently alleged that defendant had made
misrepresentations in advertising the machines. Plaintiffs
allege that through written advertisements, flyers,
brochures, product inserts, press releases, websites, and
public statements, defendants attracted purchasers, including
plaintiffs, all while knowing that defendant's
representations were false.
first amended complaint identified the plaintiffs as LDGP;
Ritacca Cosmetic Surgery and Med Spa, Ltd.
(“Ritacca”); Black Alsatians, LLC d/b/a Pigment
Demographics and Laser Removal (“PDLR”); and
Burke Dermatology, P.A. (“Burke”). The second
amended complaint, operative here, omitted plaintiff LDGP,
who was consequently terminated from the case, but added four
new plaintiffs, namely Banucci Institute, LLC
(“Banucci”); Synergy Medical Specialists, P.C.
(“Synergy”); Dermatology Laser Center &
Medispa, LLC (“DLCM”); and The Facial Surgery
Center (“FSC”). In sum, named plaintiffs
currently include three who were listed in both the first
amended complaint and the second amended complaint (Ritacca,
PDLR, and Burke), and four who were added in the second
amended complaint (Banucci, Synergy, DLCM, and
FSC). Plaintiffs allege that Ritacca is located
and licensed in Illinois. All of the other plaintiffs,
however, are alleged to be located or licensed in
jurisdictions other than Illinois, and there are no
allegations that any of them have any presence in or
connection with Illinois of any kind. Defendant is
incorporated in Delaware, maintains its principle place of
business in Massachussetts, and does business in Illinois.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and only possess
the power authorized by the Constitution and statute.
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013). “A
federal court sitting in diversity must rely on the law of
personal jurisdiction that governs the courts of general
jurisdiction in the state where the court is sitting.”
Hyatt Int'l Corp. v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 713
(7th Cir. 2002); see also Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601
F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[W]here no federal
statute authorizes nationwide service of process, personal
jurisdiction is governed by the law of the forum
state.” (footnote omitted) (citing Fed R. Civ. P.
4(k)(1)(A))). The Illinois long-arm statute “permits
its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction up to the limits
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp. of Wis., 783 F.3d 695, 697
(7th Cir. 2015); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c)
(“A court may also exercise jurisdiction on any other
basis now or hereafter permitted by the Illinois Constitution
and the Constitution of the United States.”).
“Because Illinois permits personal jurisdiction if it
would be authorized by either the Illinois Constitution or
the United States Constitution, the state statutory and
federal constitution requirements merge.” uBID,
Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 425 (7th Cir.
Process Clause authorizes two forms of personal jurisdiction:
general all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or case-linked
jurisdiction. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A.
v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). “The threshold
for general jurisdiction is high; the contacts must be
sufficiently extensive and pervasive to approximate physical
presence.” Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 701. Courts
have not limited the reach of general jurisdiction to a
defendant's domicile, but rather, “[a] court may
assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or
foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims
against them when their affiliations with the State are so
‘continuous and systematic' as to render them
essentially at home in the forum State.” Abelesz v.
OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638, 654 (7th Cir. 2012) (emphasis
omitted) (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). With
respect to a corporation, the paradigm bases for general
jurisdiction are its place of incorporation and principal
place of business. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134
S.Ct. 746, 760 (2014). These bases allow plaintiffs at least
one clear forum in which a corporate defendant may be
considered subject to general personal jurisdiction.
Id. Mere continuous activity in a forum state,
however, is not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction.
Id. at 757.
jurisdiction is very different. In order for a state court to
exercise specific jurisdiction, the suit must arise
out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the
forum.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super.
Ct. of Cal., 582 U.S., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017).
“[T]here must be an affiliation between the forum and
the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an
occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is
therefore subject to the State's regulation.”
Id. Because of this, “specific jurisdiction is
confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or
connected with, the very controversy that establishes
jurisdiction.” Id. Additionally, a state may
not assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident's
claim where the connection to the state is based on the
defendant's conduct in relation to a resident plaintiff,
and not the nonresident plaintiff. See id. at 1781
(explaining that the “mere fact that other
[resident] plaintiffs” were prescribed and took
defendant's drugs in the state and sustained the same
injuries as nonresident plaintiffs did not provide the
required “connection between the forum and the specific
claims at issue” for the Court to exercise jurisdiction
over the nonresidents' claims against defendant); see
also McDonnell v. Nature's Way Prods., LLC, 2017 WL
4864910 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2017). 
does not contest the court's jurisdiction with respect to
the claims brought by plaintiff Ritacca, the only plaintiff
with alleged connections to Illinois. It does, however,
contest the court's jurisdiction with respect to the
claims brought by the other plaintiffs, arguing that the
court's power to exercise jurisdiction over claims
brought by resident plaintiffs does not extend to the claims
of nonresident plaintiffs. As an example, it focuses on the
allegation that Banucci is licensed in Puerto Rico and the
absence of allegations that the events from which
Banucci's claims arose took place in, or had any
connection with, Illinois, and extends this ...