Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp. of Wis.

• Decision Date: 15 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–2527.,14–2527.
• Parties: William R. KIPP, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SKI ENTERPRISE CORPORATION OF WISCONSIN, INC., Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

783 F.3d 695

William R. KIPP, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
SKI ENTERPRISE CORPORATION OF WISCONSIN, INC., Defendant–Appellee.

No. 14–2527.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Dec. 2, 2014.
Decided April 15, 2015.

783 F.3d 696

Craig M. Sandberg, Attorney, Muslin & Sandberg, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Robert M. Chemers, Attorney, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellee.

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

WOOD, Chief Judge.

William Kipp broke his collarbone as he was attempting to board a chairlift operated by Ski Enterprise Corporation of Wisconsin, Inc., in Merrimac, Wisconsin. Kipp sued Ski Enterprise in federal court in Illinois, alleging that the company had negligently caused his injuries. Ski Enterprise countered with a motion seeking dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted that motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. We affirm.

I

On January 6, 2012, Kipp purchased a chairlift ticket at Devil's Head Ski Resort. As a result of the “unreasonably fast speed” of the lift in the boarding area, he was injured as he was attempting to board it. Kipp sued Ski Enterprise, the operator of the lift, in the Northern District of Illinois. He asserted that Ski Enterprise's negligence in operating the lift at such a high speed caused him to be thrown from the lift and to suffer a displaced left clavicular fracture (i.e., a broken collarbone). The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit based on diversity of citizenship: Kipp is a citizen of Illinois, and Ski Enterprise is both incorporated and has its principal place of business in Wisconsin. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (c)(1).

Ski Enterprise filed a motion to dismiss based on the court's lack of personal jurisdiction over it. After allowing Kipp to conduct limited discovery, the court granted the motion and dismissed the suit. In doing so, it relied on the following facts, which are not disputed by the parties. Ski Enterprise owns and operates the ski slopes at Devil's Head Resort in Merrimac, Wisconsin. Its only offices are in Wisconsin. The company does not engage in print or broadcast advertising in Illinois, but it does attend a trade show—the “Windy City Ski and Snowboard Show”—that takes place in Chicago every year. At the show, Ski Enterprise representatives speak with potential customers and obtain their email addresses. The company later sends out “email E blasts” to those contacts

783 F.3d 697

touting its services and sales. There is also a website that includes information about both the Devil's Head Resort (which is owned by the Devil's Head Area Recreation Company, not a party here) and the ski slopes at the resort (which, as just noted, are operated by Ski Enterprise). Customers can reserve rooms at the resort through the website, which takes a deposit at that time, but they cannot purchase lift tickets on the site. The resort offers a vacation package called the “Chicagoland Express,” but the package is not limited to Chicago—or even Illinois—residents. According to Joseph Vittengl, Ski Enterprise's general manager, approximately 60 to 75 percent of the resort's clients are from Illinois.

After the district court granted Ski Enterprise's motion to dismiss, Kipp timely appealed. We review the district court's decision to dismiss de novo. Hyatt Int'l Corp. v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 712 (7th Cir.2002).

II

Once a defendant has moved for a dismissal based on the lack of personal jurisdiction, “the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction.” Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi–Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir.2003). When a court does not hold an evidentiary hearing but instead grants the defendant's motion on the basis of written materials, as the district court did here, the plaintiff must establish merely a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. See id.

A federal district court sitting in diversity must apply the personal jurisdiction rules of the state in which it sits. See Hyatt, 302 F.3d at 713. Illinois is the relevant state in this case. The governing statute in Illinois permits its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction up to the limits of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See 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.”); Hyatt, 302 F.3d at 715 (noting no operative difference between federal constitutional and Illinois constitutional personal jurisdiction limitations, though acknowledging that the “two standards hypothetically might diverge”); Rollins v. Ellwood, 141 Ill.2d 244, 152 Ill.Dec. 384, 565 N.E.2d 1302, 1316 (1990) (construing the due process guarantee in the Illinois Constitution to mean 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”). In keeping with these...