Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Northern Grain Marketing, LLC v Greving

Case No. 12-2653 (C.A. 7, Feb. 18, 2014)

Marvin Greving has lived and farmed in southeastern Wisconsin since April 1971. In 2003 he began contracting to sell his grain to Northern Grain Marketing, LLC, an Illinois-based grain buyer. Northern Grain claims that Greving repudiated several contracts formed years after the parties first began contracting and seeks almost $1 million in damages from him. When Greving refused to arbitrate the dispute, Northern Grain filed this action in the district court in Rockford, Illinois, seeking an order compelling arbitration. Greving moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted that motion and Northern Grain took this appeal.

We affirm. Greving lacks minimum contacts with Illinois that would permit the district court, consistent with the dueprocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over him. As relevant to this dispute, Greving only set foot in Illinois once—to attend a seed-corn meeting in Rochelle in early 2003, several months before the parties entered into the first of their grain contracts. It was there that he met Tom Wilson, who became his point of contact with Northern Grain. But even assuming that Greving’s attendance at this seed-corn meeting enters the personal-jurisdiction calculus for the later-formed contracts at issue here, there is no indication in the record that Greving attended the meeting in an effort to find grain buyers. And virtually everything else about Greving’s contractual relationship with Northern Grain was based in Wisconsin. When Greving met with Wilson, they met either at his Wisconsin farm or at a Denny’s restaurant in Delavan, Wisconsin. Greving delivered his Wisconsin-grown grain to a grain elevator in Wisconsin. Of course, the checks he received from Northern Grain were drawn on Illinois banks, but that does not show that he purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Illinois. So although it may seem convenient as a practical matter for Greving to defend this suit in Rockford, the Constitution doesn’t permit the Illinois courts—and, thus, federal district courts in Illinois—to exercise jurisdiction over him.

I. Background



Marvin Greving is a longtime Wisconsinite. Although he graduated from high school in Iowa and attended college in New York, he has lived and farmed in Walworth County, in rural southeastern Wisconsin, since April 1971, and has owned his own farm in Elkhorn since 1977. He and his wife conduct their personal and business activities in Wisconsin, and their children attended Wisconsin schools. Greving has a Wisconsin driver’s license, Wisconsin insurance, and pays taxes into the Wisconsin treasury. He purchases his seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and other farm equipment from Wisconsin vendors.
 

 

Judge(s): Diane Sykes
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Related Categories: ADR , Civil Procedure , Constitutional Law , Contracts
 
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Joel Flaum
David Hamilton
Diane Sykes

 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Philip Reinhard

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
createdcontinuingobligationsbetweenitselfand tional propriety of personal jurisdiction in a suit arising out of in wisconsin where south carolina defendants initiated a convenient as a practical matter for greving to defend this suit dworkin, 601 f.3d 693, 702 (7th cir. 2010), it is by no means clear that a specified date and, so far as the record reveals, involved no in any advertising or distribution efforts in illinois—instead, inthe forum state. madison consulting groupdoesn’t dictate the sykes, circuit judge. marvin greving has lived and farmed driver’s license, wisconsin insurance, and pays taxes into the greving did not sign any of the documents. dant had “advertised in trade magazines circulated in wiscon- sin [the forum state],” signed up with a distributor in wiscon- farmers like greving, there is no indication that greving (discussing the relationship between the “catch-all” provision most of the work in madison. id. at 1194–95. we reasoned that examining “prior negotiations, contemplated future conse- northern grain marketing, llc, industrial parts; we held that the defendant wasn’t subject to the personal-jurisdiction question are undisputed. marvin greving, returned executed until march 28, 2012. in the meantime, and thus, the statutory question merges with the constitutional rockford, illinois, seeking an order compelling arbitration. jurisdiction over him. wisconsin firm to fly to washington, d.c., to discuss the show that he purposefully availed himself of the privilege of defendant to anticipate that he could be haled into court there. no. 12-2653 17 cir. 1980), where the meetings leading to contract formation to the challenged conduct or transaction.” id. at 702 (citing no. 3:12-cv-50067 — philip g. reinhard, judge. lacked personal jurisdiction over greving in this case. cient contacts with illinois to support personal jurisdiction in typical contracting process involved an oral agreement jurisdiction is not based on “random, fortuitous, or attenuated greving delivered his wisconsin-grown grain to a grain jurisdiction over awest virginia-baseddefendant whoordered no federal jurisdiction but rather requir[es] [for access to a engaged insignificantactivitieswithinthe forum steel with [the plaintiff’s] sales manager at the [the plaintiff’s] i. background the state where the district court is located—here, illinois. fed. motionto dismissbased on the submission of writtenmaterials made in the case.” tamburo v. dworkin, 601 f.3d 693, 701 (7th illinois state courts may exercise jurisdiction “on any other ship with northern grain was based in wisconsin. when the case on personal-jurisdiction grounds without addressing greving met with wilson, they met either at his wisconsin personal jurisdiction when the defendant challenges it. purdue lawsuit also would have prevented northern grain from removing the case facilitatedit throughthe expenditure of money.evenassuming without holding an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff “ ‘need 10 no. 12-2653 greving’s attendance at the 2003 seed-corn meeting should impact our sin partnership” and held that this sufficed for minimum- graduated from high school in iowa and attended college in northern district of illinois, located in rockford. the com- greving repudiated several contracts formed years after the tion of the illinois courts, so we focus our analysis on the greving knew that northern grain was located in illinois. citadel, which required the defendant not only to pay the new york, he has lived and farmed in walworth county, in contractual relationshipwiththeplaintiffconsulting firm based process,” madison consulting grp., 752 f.2d at 1204, citadel 12 no. 12-2653 v. virginia, 339 u.s. 643, 648 (1950). an illinois-based grain buyer. northern grain claims that general manager to meet with two other corporate officers in doesn’t contend that greving is subject to the general jurisdic- 357 u.s. 235, 253 (1958) (explaining that there must be “some quences, the terms of the contract, and the parties’ course of exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonconsenting, out-of- further obligations on greving’s part. the contract was performed entirely in wisconsin rather than lacked personal jurisdiction over him, that venue was im- meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations,’ ” id. at 471–72 (quoting restaurant in delavan, wisconsin, or at greving’s farm. the 4 no. 12-2653 virtually everything else about greving’s contractual relation- arbitration by the national grain and feed association were held in the forum state, see id. at 677, greving and wilson lakeside has been on the receiving end of a good bit of state defendant unless the defendant has “certain minimum state, see keeton v. hustler magazine, inc., 465 u.s. id. in contrast, here there is no evidence that greving engaged diversity of citizenship. greving informs us that his coplaintiffs’ claims that greving’s attendance at the illinois seed-corn meeting ders—greving has no relevant interaction with illinois. 457, 463 (1940)). “the nature of the defendant’s contacts with northern grain’s efforts to enforce the contract, including its to washington, d.c., for a meeting. here, there is no indication focused on lakeside’s apparent disregard of the important fact of similar contracts over the course of the next nine years or so. provisions stating that (1) disputes would be subject to recognizes that the dynamics of each type of contract may quantities of grain greater than his farm had ever produced in distinguishing analysis, and even criticism, in the years since (1) the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at the wilson was there for the purpose of soliciting clients, but that oral contracts providing for the delivery of grain between marvin greving is a longtime wisconsinite. although he at 479). so long as a commercial defendant’s efforts are proper in rockford, that northern grain had failed to state a burger king, 471 u.s. at 474. this purposeful-availment with respect to the transaction at issue, see purdue res. found., children attended wisconsin schools. greving has a wisconsin or files a waiver of service, but only so long as the defendant is contacts purposes. id. at 1203. of-state party alone cannot establish automatically sufficient subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in to this end, the supreme court repeatedly has the course of contract performance, at least as a practical “not some little mom and pop retailer who passively sold only § 1332; see also federal arbitration act, 9 u.s.c. § 4; vaden v. to the u.s. district court for the eastern district of wisconsin based on has sufficient minimum contacts with illinois, we need not go he’s a farmer selling grain to a single buyer who markets the (“ngfa”); and (2) greving would be obligated to cover plaintiff’s home state. see giotis v. apollo of the ozarks, inc., consulting project; (3) mailing a copy of the contract to wiscon- was anything other than fortuitous on his part. (of course, in madison, wisconsin. we held that the defendants purpose- asked whether the defendant has deliberately tual relationship here belies the idea that greving had suffi- plaintiff-appellant, nor does considering the “ ‘terms of the contract and the we recognize that greving didn’t just have one contract for bears on the personal-jurisdiction analysis in this case, he did3 752 f.2d 1193 (7th cir. 1985), we upheld personal jurisdiction farm or at a denny’s restaurant in delavan, wisconsin. having entered into these contracts and claims that he had to (swygert, j., concurring in the result). much of the criticism is northern grain also points us to logan productions, inc. v. seed-corn meeting in rochelle in early 2003, several months exercise of specific jurisdiction must also comport with each of the unsigned documents contains fine-print illinois—we need not determine whether it constitutes part of the conduct basis now or hereafter permitted by the illinois constitution nothing in the record suggests that his meeting wilson there transaction has long been considered pertinent to the constitu- alleged contracts were invalid and unenforceable. he had wisconsin. id. at 603 (internal quotation marks omitted). 770, 781 (1984)[;] kulko v. california superior ct., months before wilson’s negotiations with greving in wiscon- his wisconsin farm and deliver it to a wisconsin grain elevator. contracting to sell hisgrain to northern grain marketing, llc, reason. there,prior telephone negotiationsledthe defendant’s fullyavailedthemselvesoftheprivilege of conducting business stantial justice.’ ” int’l shoe, 326 u.s. at 316 (quoting milliken, of the illinois long-arm statute, the illinois constitution, and contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not the forum state determines the propriety of personal jurisdic- doesn’t affect our bottom line—at best greving’s attendance at the seed- greving by checks drawn on illinois banks. pursuant to the cir. 1996)). the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing arbitration services contract, which contained a provision instead, we conduct acontext-sensitive analysisofthecontract, personal-jurisdiction calculus for the later-formed contracts at no. 12-2653 7 dispute, northern grain filed this action in the district court in northern grain alleges that greving repudiated several ily with a district office nearer to his restaurant). still, lakeside for example, in madison consulting group v. south carolina, sin ripened into the first contract with northern grain. more- plaint invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction. see 28 u.s.c. over, the record gives no indication that greving knew (or underlying the claims in this lawsuit. king, 471 u.s. at 478. and the nature of the particular contrac- himself of the privilege of conducting business in illinois. the alleged contracts was not subject to arbitration and that the dismiss the illinois lawsuit. he asserted that the district court were formed remotely or in the nonforum state, and they united states court of appeals novo. hyatt int’l corp. v. coco, 302 f.3d 707, 712 (7th cir. 2002) the forum state to “discuss in detail the purchase of secondary the ground that “lakeside’s contract was to complete a discrete defendant is actively marketing products in the buyer- greving says he joined with these illinois farmers in filing a lawsuit2 in southeastern wisconsin since april 1971. in 2003 he began 800 f.2d 660, 667 (7th cir. 1986) (explaining that personal followedbyawrittenconfirmation.northern grainwouldpay because he already had an action arising out of the same facts northern grain’s duty was simply to compensate greving for it was decided. see citadel grp., 536 f.3d at 763 (“[t]his court a discrete delivery of grain. he recontracted with northern 311 u.s. at 463). the district court correctly determined that it attended the meeting in an effort to find grain buyers. and no. 12-2653 3 r. civ. p. 4(k)(1)(a). illinois law permits its courts to exercise defendant-appellee. task: to make and ship structural assemblies[, whereas]…[t]he to be “actively reaching out to solicit the services of a wiscon- seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the dispute over 436 u.s. 84, 94–95 (1978), or whether it has documents purporting to be written confirmations of these minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum. see burger grain from time to time for about nine years. and he did this in november 2011 greving received a copy of an arbitra- sin, and even conducted dealer training in wisconsin, it had grevingmoved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. the minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum.” purdue tion between goods and services contracts for purposes of due case against personal jurisdiction is stronger here. contacts with a state,” the defendant is subject to general in january 2012 greving, through counsel, responded to the actual dealing with each other.” id. (citing burger king, 471 u.s. individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding factorintothepersonal-jurisdictionanalysis.)indeed, northern the forum state—e.g., the franchise contract in burger king, courts—and,thus,federal district courtsinillinois—toexercise terms of the contracts, greving produced the grain and rochelle, illinois. this was essentially a trade show sponsored 471 u.s. at 480 (describing the contract as a “carefully struc- personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s “power to bring a defendant’s contacts with the forum state must “directly relate 8 no. 12-2653 cared) what northern grain did with his grain after each sale. bia, s.a. v. hall, 466 u.s. 408, 416 (1984)). northern grain state must be substantial enough to make it reasonable for the fact that the defendant hasn’t physically entered it does not manufacturer “intentionallyserved the [forum-state] market.” matter. although we “do not recognize any inherent distinc- that would permit the district court, consistent with the due- at the rate of 18% per annum. continuously fend off wilson’s efforts to get him to sign grow and deliver grain in wisconsin. they are more like the assocs., llc v. mattel, inc., 552 u.s. 576, 581–82 (2008)). in the on who initiated contact and more on whether the defendant we review a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction de (quoting burger king, 471 u.s. at 479), dictate a finding of v. case when the plaintiff serves the defendant with a summons purposefully directed toward residents of the forum state, the issue here, each of which was performed once by delivery on before the parties entered into the first of their grain contracts. wisconsin treasury. he purchases his seed, fertilizer, pesti- relevant provision of the federal arbitration act “ ‘bestow[s] claim, and that the “doctrine of abstention” required dismissal jurisdiction in a diversity case are found in the fourteenth requiredthe defendantto deliver grain growninthe nonforum has frequently distinguished lakeside from other cases, based summons wasn’t issued for two more weeks and wasn’t (citing burger king, 471 u.s. at 472); see also hanson v. denckla, the plaintiff’sfavor whenevaluating whether that showing has only make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.’ ” id. 2003, with numerous intervening contracts separating greving’s initial wilson’s efforts paid off. he and greving kept in touch by process clause of the fourteenth amendment, to exercise the defendant’s bidding, a relevant fact under subsequent attended the meeting with an eye toward marketing his own tions leading to the first contract were conducted remotely and stat. 5/2-209(a)(1), (7). additionally, and more importantly, marks omitted)); madison consulting grp., 752 f.2d at 1205 in rockford, the constitution doesn’t permit the illinois defendantsnot only initiatedcontactwith the wisconsin-based after being served by northern grain, greving moved to decision in madison consulting grouptreats lakeside as marking amendment’s due-process clause, see burger king corp. v. no. 12-2653 11 defendant entered into a franchise contract with a corporation stating that greving would submit to arbitration by the ngfa. 14 no. 12-2653 2003). where, as here, the district court rules on a defendant’s for the northern district of illinois, western division. and inconvenience of multiple lawsuits that arise out of the same facts and lakeside, this court has denied personal jurisdiction.” 752 f.2d a given year and that he resisted wilson’s efforts to get him to personal jurisdiction. in citadel we distinguished lakeside on corn meeting can only be described as an attenuated contact with grain to buyers. one—ifillinois constitutionally may exercise personal jurisdic- result in this case. without ever having set foot in wisconsin. id. at 598. we before learning of northern grain’s federal-court lawsuit, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, plus compound interest something of a borderline for a no-jurisdiction finding: contacts that demonstrate a real relationship with the state no. 12-2653 cides, and other farm equipment from wisconsin vendors. court granted that motion and northern grain took this 763. greving’s contracts similarly involve a discrete task: to purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting gciu-emp’r ret. fund v. goldfarb corp., 565 f.3d 1018, 1024 (7th is a limited-liability company organized under delaware law given that we evaluate specific personal jurisdiction by reference to “the3 dispute, greving only set foot in illinois once—to attend a to those out-of-staters who happened to wander into its shop.” cir. 1979). there we found that wisconsin lacked personal would work with him in meeting the quantities and wilson’s our caseisreadilydistinguishablefrom madisonconsulting actually, wilson was a grain originator at harmon grain, llc, northern1 letter and declined to submit to arbitration. grain’s predecessor entity. activities in that state. id. at 53. we pointed out that the jurisdiction over a person “as to any cause of action arising analysis at all. the contracts at issue here were allegedly formed years after doesn’t help northern grain. unlike wisconsin electrical appeal. “structural assemblies” from the wisconsin-based plaintiff rural southeastern wisconsin, since april 1971, and has owned damages plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. personal jurisdiction in that state. here, the contracts at issue underlying claim, northern grain seeks almost $1 million in but located in harmon, illinois. it buys and markets grain, and discussed their contracts in wisconsin or over the phone. in february 2012 northern grain filed an action to compel shortly thereafter,hereceivedaletter that includedaproposed 338 f.3d at 780. because they had similar claims and thus wanted to “minimize the expense have been resolved but the rest of the state-court suit remains pending. purchase of grain. while it appears that wilson attended the seed-corn meeting for the purpose of making contacts with rudzewicz, 471 u.s. 462, 464 (1985), which “protects an to those contacts. id. (quoting helicopteros nacionales de colom- timely appeal. neither party urges us to reach the other issues insurance contracts in travelers health ass'n, 339 u.s. at 648 no. 12-2653 15 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. tamburo, contacts with wisconsin … consist[ed] solely of the unilateral the defendant purchaser only to “accept and pay for the wide-reaching contacts with burger king in florida”) and the 16 no. 12-2653 manufacturing contract in lakeside—described in citadel as contact with northern grain. but even assuming that cir. 2010). if the defendant has “ ‘continuous and systematic’ person into itsadjudicative process.”black’s law dictionary focusing on the negotiations preceding each contract greving and northern grain, via wilson, entered into a series the grain. greving wasn’t actively marketing his grain to other issue. privilege of conducting activities within the forum state”). the wilson,a grain originator for northern grain. northern grain1 manufacturing co. v. pennant products, inc., 619 f.2d 676 (7th that distinguishes this situation from the one in which a seller- that state. greving’s contractual duty was to grow his grain on cir.2009)).“specificpersonal jurisdiction is appropriate where illinois companies; he just happened to get acquainted with defeat personal jurisdiction there. burger king, 471 u.s. at 476. the u.s. constitution). december 2010 and december 2012. greving denies ever in wisconsin by (1) placing a phone call to the wisconsin firm ii. discussion the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum activity of” the wisconsin-based plaintiff; no other circum- as—if not more—limited than those of the defendant in forum state or purposefully availed himself of the privilege of contacts,” id. at 475 (internal quotation marks omitted), but on res. found., 338 f.3d at 781 (citing burger king, 471 u.s. at 478). it was there that he met tom wilson, who became his point of would take place primarily within wisconsin, the contract in 2003 greving traveled some 70 miles from his farm to so. see hyatt, 302 f.3d at 714–15; see also citadel grp. ltd. v. requirednorthern graintoamenditsjurisdictional allegations by a seed company at which farmers could learn more about to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, the raised in greving’s motion; personal jurisdiction is the sole that the plaintiff performed the contract in the forum state at “[w]hen a defendant’s contacts with the forum state have been been made, id., though in the present case, the facts material to (describing the insurance certificates as being “systematically “[t]he question of which party initiated or solicited a business priate in such situations). greving did not purposefully avail federal forum] an independent jurisdictional basis’ over the “has never been overruled.” citadel, 536 f.3d at 763. our their personal and business activities in wisconsin, and their for the seventh circuit contract in this case was for citadel to provide a service.” id. at ment, 326 u.s. 310, 319 (1945)). a forum state’s courts may not that [greving] sell certain quantities of [grain].” and of course elevator in wisconsin. of course, the checks he received from and the constitution of the united states.” id. § 5/2-209(c). no. 12-2653 13 930 (9th ed. 2009). a federal district court’s personal jurisdic- argued june 4, 2013 — decided february 18, 2014 attend a seed-corn meeting held at an insurance agency in wilson’s job duties included contracting with farmers for the no. 12-2653 9 availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within and widely delivered” in the forum state and “creat[ing] or] … (7) [t]he making or performance of any contract or promisesubstantially connectedwith [illinois].”735ill.comp. optibase, inc., 103 f.3d 49 (7th cir. 1996). there, we focused less consulting firm, but also provided for one of its partners to fly tured 20-year relationship that envisioned continuing and rockford offends “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and sub- with respect to contract disputes, “contracting with an out- graindoes not disputethat it was wilson who “wouldpropose from … (1) [t]he transaction of any business within [illinois; conducting business in illinois. so although it may seem & steel co. v. mountain state construction co., 597 f.2d 596 (7th we affirm. greving lacks minimum contacts with illinois knowing that northern grain was based in illinois. but it is jurisdiction in the buyer-plaintiff’s home state is often appro- to identify the principal place of business of its member on the unique circumstances of each case.” (internal quotation at all, and if so, whether it is general or specific to the claims appeal from the united states district court wisconsin residents ‘and knew how to earn it!’ ” id. this was affirmed. damages from him. when greving refused to arbitrate the act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the present in that case. in lakeside a contract initiated remotely by agents to travel across the country, we deemed the defendants not in illinois. (citing logan prods., inc. v. optibase, inc., 103 f.3d 49, 52 (7th parties’ dispute.” (alterations in original) (quoting hall street analyzing whether requiring greving to defend the suit in state party doesn’t suffice on its own to establish sufficient 6 no. 12-2653 nucor corp. v. aceros y maquilas de occidente, s.a. de c.v., arises out of the defendant’s forum-related activities.” id. specific-jurisdiction inquiry. affect the personal-jurisdiction analysis. similarly, supreme phone after the meeting, and eventually greving agreed to sell in the negotiations and acceptance took place via mail, and “the conducting business in that state, and (2) the alleged injury his own farm in elkhorn since 1977. he and his wife conduct (quoting hyatt, 302 f.3d at 713). we resolve factual disputes in delivered it to one of several wisconsin grain elevators. sign the documents despite assurances that northern grain the transaction.” id. at 1202. since the defendants not only specific personal jurisdiction over him. as relevant to this assemblies,” id.—than the construction-project contract in corporations, which northern grain did on march 1, 2012. the is the type of unilateral activity by the plaintiff that doesn’t int’l shoe, 326 u.s. at 316 (quoting milliken v. meyer, 311 u.s. developer but also to stay in continuous contact with it during pending in wisconsin state court. the district court dismissed jurisdiction there in any action, even if the action is unrelated discover bank, 556 u.s. 49, 59 (2009) (explaining that the a few days after this action was filed, the district court greving’s attendance at this seed-corn meeting enters the tion over a defendant is established in a diversity-jurisdiction recognized that although the performance of the contract greving independently filed suit in wisconsin state court 28 f.3d 572 (7th cir. 1994), is distinguishable for the same court cases involving contracts with continuing obligations to int’l shoe co. v. wash., office of unemployment comp. & place- (finding minimum contacts with the forum state where the well established that an individual’s contract with an out-of- ultimately,ourcaseseemsto beclosestto lakeside—indeed, 601 f.3d at 702 (citing int’l shoe, 326 u.s. at 316). holders)—are inapposite to the series of discrete contracts at a resident of the forum, see travelers health ass'n id. at 53. we concluded that since the california-based defen- company,too:three illinoisfarmers joinedhimascoplaintiffs.2 the defendantrequiredthe forum-stateplaintifftomanufacture parties’ actual course of dealing’ ” citadel grp., 536 f.3d at 761 stancesindicatedthat the west virginiacompanypurposefully the latest technology in seed corn. while there, greving met arbitration in federal court in the western division of the res. found. v. sanofi-synthelabo, s.a., 338 f.3d 773, 782 (7th cir. wilson at the seed-corn trade meeting in illinois. it was several tion over a defendant, its long-arm statute will enable it to do raise common issues.” of course, the presence of illinois farmers in the because northern grain has failed to show that greving called for greving to produce and deliver grain in wisconsin, in arriving at this decision, we distinguished lakeside bridge 2 no. 12-2653 the federal constitutional limits of a court’s personal completed entirely from within the badger state’s bor- id. at 780–81 (parallel citations omitted). group, which turned heavilyon the factthat the south carolina further in the personal-jurisdiction analysis by, for example, that greving initiated this business relationship at all, let alone defendant had said itself that it “ ‘wanted the business’ of protestation that he could get fired if greving didn’t sign. issue here, there is no indication in the record that greving northern grainwere drawnon illinoisbanks,butthatdoesnot when greving and wilson met, they did so at a denny’s continuing obligations” between the insurer and the insurance meeting with wilson from the contracts at issue here. because the issue was on the other side of the country and he interacted primar- initiated the negotiations but also induced one of the plaintiff’s tion complaint that northern grain had filed with the ngfa. state to a grain elevator also located in the nonforum state. the to initiate the negotiations; (2) paying for a partner from the contracts. he claims that these alleged contracts involved sin; and (4) knowing that the consulting firm would complete greving’s other arguments, and northern grain took this plant.” id. at 580. in the present case, the preliminary negotia- money from this illinois-based buyer—activities that greving before flaum, sykes, and hamilton, circuit judges. so without any apparent intent to solicit business there. tion and also its scope—that is, whether jurisdiction is proper supreme court precedent. see burger king, 471 u.s. 462 judgments of a forum with which he has established no requirement ensures that a defendant’s amenability to grain to others. aside from contracting with and receiving offend‘traditionalnotionsof fairplayandsubstantialjustice.’ ” at 1200. wash. reg’l med. ctr., 536 f.3d 757, 760–61 (7th cir. 2008) involving no “continuing obligations,” but instead requiring it involves even fewer contacts with the forum state than were no. 12-2653 5 headquartered in the forum state, even though his restaurant particular conduct underlying the claims made in the lawsuit,” tamburo v. parties first began contracting and seeks almost $1 million in grain to northern grain. at the time of initial contracting,


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise