purposeful availment requirement in Illinois

2026Ill. 1973) (we consider “the broader activities of the defendants concerning the trust” to determine personal jurisdiction, focusing on substance rather than quantity). ¶ 35 Gupta argues that Amoateng’s acts were not random, fortuitous, or attenuated (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (the purposeful availment requirement means that a defendant cannot be haled into a forum if the contacts were “ ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ ” (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984))) and that Amoateng knew that the effects of his actions would be fe

2011This purposeful availment requirement ensures that a nonresident defendant will not be forced to litigate in Illinois because of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the “unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417 (1984)).

2007"The purposeful availment requirement exists so that an `alien defendant will not be forced to litigate in a distant or inconvenient forum solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the unilateral act of a consumer or some other third person.'" Keller, 359 Ill.App.3d at 613 , 296 Ill.Dec. 125 , 834 N.E.2d 930 , quoting Spartan Motors, 337 Ill.App.3d at 561 , 272 Ill.Dec. 74 , 786 N.E.2d 613 , citing Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. at 2183 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 542 .

2007"The purposeful availment requirement exists so that an `alien defendant will not be forced to litigate in a distant or inconvenient forum solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the unilateral act of a consumer or some other third person.'" Keller, 359 Ill.App.3d at 613 , 296 Ill.Dec. 125 , 834 N.E.2d 930 , quoting Spartan Motors, 337 Ill.App.3d at 561 , 272 Ill.Dec. 74 , 786 N.E.2d 613 , citing Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. at 2183 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 542 .

2011“Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” (Emphasis in original.) Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 (quoting McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957)).

2011“Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” (Emphasis in original.) Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 (quoting McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957)).

2011Hyperquest, Inc. v. NuGen I.T., Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 884, 894 (N.D.

2011Hyperquest, Inc. v. NuGen I.T., Inc., 627 F.Supp.2d 884, 894 (N.D.Ill.2008). ¶ 17 Here, regarding the first factor, defendants did not initiate the contract; either Aasonn or SuccessFactors did.

2011This purposeful availment requirement ensures that a nonresident defendant will not be forced to litigate in Illinois because of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the “unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417 (1984)).

2011This purposeful availment requirement ensures that a nonresident defendant will not be forced to litigate in Illinois because of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the “unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417 (1984)).

2026Ill. 1973) (we consider “the broader activities of the defendants concerning the trust” to determine personal jurisdiction, focusing on substance rather than quantity). ¶ 35 Gupta argues that Amoateng’s acts were not random, fortuitous, or attenuated (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (the purposeful availment requirement means that a defendant cannot be haled into a forum if the contacts were “ ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ ” (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984))) and that Amoateng knew that the effects of his actions would be fe

2023To purposely avail itself of the benefits of a forum, a defendant “must take ‘some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ___, 141 S. Ct. at 1024 (quoting Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253 ).

2011Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. City of East Chicago, 401 Ill.App.3d 947, 954 , 343 Ill.Dec. 23 , 934 N.E.2d 23 (2010). ¶ 15 It is undisputed here that Aasonn's complaint alleging breach of contract and fraud arose from defendants' contacts with Illinois.

2011Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. City of East Chicago, 401 Ill.App.3d 947, 954 , 343 Ill.Dec. 23 , 934 N.E.2d 23 (2010). ¶ 15 It is undisputed here that Aasonn's complaint alleging breach of contract and fraud arose from defendants' contacts with Illinois.

2026Ill. 1973) (we consider “the broader activities of the defendants concerning the trust” to determine personal jurisdiction, focusing on substance rather than quantity). ¶ 35 Gupta argues that Amoateng’s acts were not random, fortuitous, or attenuated (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (the purposeful availment requirement means that a defendant cannot be haled into a forum if the contacts were “ ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ ” (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984))) and that Amoateng knew that the effects of his actions would be fe

2024Myer v. Samsung SDI Co., 91 F.4th 856, 862 (7th Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (allowing for jurisdictional discovery in a similar Indiana case when “the parties agree[d] that Samsung SDI s[old] some batteries—but not 18650 batteries—directly to Indiana utility companies for use in power grids”). ¶ 21 Alternatively, a defendant can be found to have met the purposeful availment requirement if it “ ‘deliver[ed] its products into the [national] stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State.’ ” Russell, 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 43 (quoting World-Wide Volkswa

2024Myer v. Samsung SDI Co., 91 F.4th 856, 862 (7th Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (allowing for jurisdictional discovery in a similar Indiana case when “the parties agree[d] that Samsung SDI s[old] some batteries—but not 18650 batteries—directly to Indiana utility companies for use in power grids”). ¶ 21 Alternatively, a defendant can be found to have met the purposeful availment requirement if it “ ‘deliver[ed] its products into the [national] stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State.’ ” Russell, 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 43 (quoting World-Wide Volkswa

2020“This intent requirement mirrors the purposeful-availment requirement.” Id. - 25 - 2020 IL App (2d) 191115-U ¶ 60 Calvary likens this case to Arthur Young & Company v. Bremer, 197 Ill.