I & M Rail Link v. Northstar Navigation

• Decision Date: 21 September 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97 C 8821.,97 C 8821.
• Citation: 21 F.Supp.2d 849
• Parties: I & M RAIL LINK, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR NAVIGATION, a Kentucky Corporation, in personam, and the M/V Megan Beesecker, in rem, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

21 F.Supp.2d 849

I & M RAIL LINK, a Delaware LimitedLiability Corporation, Plaintiff, v.NORTHSTAR NAVIGATION, a Kentucky Corporation, in personam, and the M/V Megan Beesecker, in rem, Defendants.

No. 97 C 8821.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

September 21, 1998.

Weston W. Marsh, Richard Thomas Sikes, Jr., Anthony Joseph Carballo, David C Hurst, Freeborn & Peters, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Mark Daniel Roth, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtd., Chicago, IL, James Mondl, Tonkin & Mondl, L.C., St. Louis, MO, for Defendants.

OPINION and ORDER

NORGLE, District Judge.

Before the court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for improper venue and, in the alternative, for lack of personal jurisdiction.SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), 12(b)(2).For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is denied.The court, however, transfers this case to the Western Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

I.BACKGROUND

This is a maritime case about a bridge-barge collision on the "Mighty Mississippi."See generallyMark Twain, Life on the Mississippi, (Harper & RowEd.1965).

Plaintiff I & M Rail Link ("I & M") owns a railroad bridge that spans the Mississippi River between Sabula, Iowa, and Savanna, Illinois.Built in 1905, it is a "swing span" bridge, meaning that one section of the bridge, via a center pivot pier, swings ninety degrees, and thereby opens two unobstructed navigation channels for approaching river traffic.Vessels are then able to navigate on either side of the center pivot pier.Here, the eastern navigation channel is referred to as the "Illinois draw," while the western navigation channel is referred to as the "Iowa draw."Each draw is 156' in width.

On May 5, 1997, the M/V Megan Beesecker("the Beesecker"), a towboat owned by DefendantNorthstar Navigation, Inc.("Northstar"), arrived in Savanna, Illinois with nine barges in tow.Her assignment was to pick up three additional barges from Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc.Upon doing so, the Beesecker proceeded to shove the twelve loaded barges down river.As they approached I & M's bridge, the Beesecker's pilot, James Jarvis("Jarvis") radioed the bridge tender and asked him to open the swing span.Initially, Jarvis intended to pass through the Iowa draw, but as he drew closer he radioed the bridge tender to tell him that the approach would be through the Illinois draw.As Jarvis navigated the Illinois draw, however, several barges struck the center pivot pier and the bridge's protective barriers.Six barges broke free while the Beesecker and the other barges remained lodged within the Illinois draw.

As a result, I & M's bridge was rendered temporarily inoperative.Not until the next day were the Beesecker and barges dislodged.While a relief towboat pushed one of the barges up river, however, the barge broke free, floated down river, and again struck the bridge.

I & M has filed a one-count complaint against Northstar in personam and against the Beesecker in rem, alleging negligence and seeking monetary relief in excess of $75,000 for the alleged damage to its bridge.I & M asserts that jurisdiction is proper under this court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, (see28 U.S.C. § 1333,Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h),46 U.S.C. § 740), and diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.¹

Northstar now moves to dismiss, arguing that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because: (1) no substantial part of the accident occurred in this district; and (2) it is not a resident of Illinois, i.e., it does have any office or agent in Illinois, and it is not licensed to do business in the state.In the alternative, Northstar argues that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois because it lacks the necessary minimum contacts with the state to satisfy the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Northstar concedes, however, that if the court determines that the collision occurred within Illinois, jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court.(Def.'s Reply, at 2.)

In response, I & M asserts that the court jurisdiction over Northstar because the collision occurred in Illinois and because "Northstar has purposely availed itself of this forum by virtue of its extensive activities navigating vessels and shoving barges in Illinois waters on the upper Mississippi River."(Pl.'s Resp., at 2, 6.)According to I & M, venue is proper because "portions of the negligence and the events which gave rise to this claim occurred [in the Northern District of Illinois].For example, the captain of the M/V Megan Beesecker left the safety of Savanna, Illinois, to proceed down river in high winds as he approached the bridge....He then collided with I & M's bridge while attempting to navigate its Illinois draw."(Id.)

The court will first address the question of personal jurisdiction.

II.DISCUSSION

A.Personal Jurisdiction

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.SeeRAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel Ltd.,107 F.3d 1272, 1276(7th Cir.1997).When determining whether it has jurisdiction over a defendant, the court can both consider and weigh affidavits submitted by the parties, seeKontos v. U.S. Dept. of Labor,826 F.2d 573, 576(7th Cir.1987), but must accept as true all undenied factual allegations and interpret all disputed facts in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction.SeeSaylor v. Dyniewski,836 F.2d 341, 342(7th Cir.1988).

"An admiralty action may be brought against a corporation in any United States District Court which can obtain personal jurisdiction over that corporation."Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton & Assocs., Inc.,5 F.3d 28, 31 n. 5(3rd Cir.1993)(quotingOcean Science & Eng'g, Inc. v. Int'l Geomarine Corp.,312 F.Supp. 825, 829(D.Del.1970));see alsoAfflerbach v. Cunard Line, Ltd.,14 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1263.

"Under Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, district courts have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent authorized under the law of the forum state in which the district court sits."Sunbelt Corp.,5 F.3d at 31(citation omitted);see alsoIn re Oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz,699 F.2d 909, 914(7th Cir.1983);Peitsch v. Regency Cruises Inc.,664 F.Supp. 362, 363(N.D.Ill.1987);Afflerbach,14 F.Supp.2d 1260, at 1263.Accordingly, the court must look to Illinois' long-arm statute.See735 ILCS 5/2-209.²

I & M asserts that subsection (a)(2) of Illinois' long-arm statute provides personal jurisdiction over Northstar because Northstar's allegedly tortious act occurred in Illinois.See735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(2).As a practical matter, however, subsection (c) of Illinois' long-arm statute subsumes the enumerated acts of subsection (a) by granting jurisdiction "on any other basis ... permitted by the Illinois Constitution and the Constitution of the United States."735 ILCS 5/2-209(c).Therefore, the court must make two constitutional inquiries — one state and one federal.SeeRAR, Inc.,107 F.3d at 1276.To this end, I & M argues that "Northstar has extensive business activities in Illinois, sufficient to have purposefully availed itself to this forum."(Pl.'s Resp., at 9.)Northstar's alleged business activities in Illinois include: (1) the acceptance of three barges at or near Savanna, Illinois; (2) the repair of the Beesecker at Hartford, Illinois; and (3) the operation of its vessels on the upper Mississippi navigation channels within the state.

"[T]he doctrine of constitutional avoidance counsels that `federal courts should avoid addressing federal constitutional issues when it is possible to dispose of a case on pendent state grounds.'"RAR, Inc.,107 F.3d at 1276(quotingTriple G Landfills, Inc. v. Board of Comm'rs of Fountain County, Ind.,977 F.2d 287, 291(7th Cir.1992)).Although "[t]he Illinois Supreme Court has made clear that the Illinois due process guarantee is not necessarily co-extensive with federal due process protections[,] ... Illinois courts have given little guidance as to how state due process protection differs from federal protection in the context of personal jurisdiction."Id.However, the Illinois Supreme Court has explained that "[j]urisdiction 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."Rollins v. Ellwood,141 Ill.2d 244, 152 Ill.Dec. 384, 398, 565 N.E.2d 1302, 1316(1990).In this case, the court finds no reason to distinguish Illinois' due process guarantee from federal due process protections.Cf.RAR, Inc.,107 F.3d at 1277(addressing federal issues directly).

Federal due process allows an Illinois court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if the defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"International Shoe Co. v. Washington,326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95(1945);Neuman & Assocs. v. Florabelle Flowers,15 F.3d 721, 725(7th Cir.1994).The defendant must purposefully avail itself of the rights and privileges of conducting activities in the forum state such that it invokes the benefits and protections of that forum's law.SeeHanson v. Denckla,357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283(1958).In other words, the defendant's activities must be of the quality and nature that it would reasonably anticipate being haled into that jurisdiction's court.SeeWorld-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,444 U.S. 286, 287, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490(1980).Due process also requires that the action arise from, or at least relate to, the defendant's contacts with the forum state, and that the defendant's relationship with the forum must not be "random, fortuitous, or attenuated."Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,471...