Wiles v. Morita Iron Works Co., Ltd.
| Citation | 105 Ill.Dec. 657,504 N.E.2d 942,152 Ill.App.3d 782 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-0255,86-0255 |
| Parties | , 105 Ill.Dec. 657, 55 USLW 2496 Floyd WILES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORITA IRON WORKS CO., LTD., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Eugene I. Pavalon, Asher, Pavalon, Gittler and Greenfield, Ltd., Chicago, Gary K. Laatsch and Allen Tish, for plaintiff-appellant.
Patterson, Carl, Meuth, Basford and Fogle, Libertyville, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff Floyd Wiles, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, sued defendant Morita Iron Works Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Morita or MIW), a Japanese corporation, which designed and manufactured the machine which allegedly caused plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff's employer, Astro Packaging Co. (hereinafter Astro), is a corporation which operates plants in Hawthorne, New Jersey and Alsip, Illinois. Astro purchased four machines from defendant. Two were shipped to the New Jersey plant, and two were shipped to the Illinois plant. Plaintiff was employed at Astro's Alsip, Illinois plant. One of the machines allegedly caused personal injuries to plaintiff, for which plaintiff seeks damages from defendant. The cause of action sounds in strict liability and negligence.
Defendant filed a special and limited appearance and a motion to dismiss, challenging the in personam jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to the Illinois Long Arm Statute. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, par. 2-209.) The motion was supported by the affidavit of Motoo Morita, defendant's president. The trial court quashed the service of process on the defendant and dismissed defendant from this action "due to lack of personal jurisdiction." Plaintiff appeals.
We must determine whether sufficient minimal contacts existed between the defendant and the State of Illinois for Illinois courts to invoke in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, pursuant to the Illinois Long Arm Statute. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, par. 2-209.) An evidentiary hearing was not held on defendant's motion to dismiss. Therefore, our determination of minimal contacts must be made on the basis of plaintiff's complaint, defendant's motion to dismiss, and the supporting affidavit of defendant's president. (Zeunert v. Quail Ridge Partnership (1st Dist. 1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 603, 607, 58 Ill.Dec. 242, 430 N.E.2d 184.) We must accept all undenied well-pleaded allegations of plaintiff's complaint as true and resolve all factual disputes in plaintiff's favor. Mandalay Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Hoffman (1st Dist.1986), 141 Ill.App.3d 891, 895, 96 Ill.Dec. 225, 491 N.E.2d 39.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufactured, designed, and sold the air cell former machine in question. On April 11, 1983, he was injured while cleaning the machine pursuant to his employment duties at Astro. In its motion to dismiss, defendant admitted that it manufactured the machine, that two machines were delivered to plaintiff's employer in Japan, and that the machines were taken to Illinois by Astro. The affidavit filed by Motoo Morita, defendant's president, revealed that four machines were sold to Astro and that he "is informed and believes that two (2) of the air cell formers were transported by Astro to Alsip, Illinois." The affidavit disclosed that the negotiations for the purchase of four air cell formers between plaintiff's employer and defendant took place at the following locations and times:
September 22-23, 1980 Monchengladbach, West Germany
November 17-19, 1980 Hawthorne, New Jersey
July 21-23, 1981 Defendant's plant, Japan
September 24, 1981 Hawthorne, New Jersey
January 25-27, 1982 Defendant's plant, Japan
April 27-May 1, 1982 Defendant's plant, Japan
October 17-20, 1983 Defendant's plant, Japan
Further, counsel for defendant admitted before the trial court that two of the air cell formers were shipped from Japan directly to Alsip, Illinois.
Defendant's theory is that the machines were designed and manufactured in Japan and sold to Astro in Japan. The fact that two of the four machines were shipped by Astro "to Illinois from Japan was entirely fortuitous." We must determine whether the record supports this conclusion.
Plaintiff was not a party to the transaction between his employer and defendant, which resulted in the purchase and delivery of the machine that caused his injury. Motoo Morita, defendant's president, stated in his affidavit:
Conspicuously absent from the affidavit are any references to contracts, shipping documents, delivery receipts and other data which would support the conclusion that the sale and delivery of the machines was consummated in Japan. The carefully drawn affidavit does not state any facts to support the conclusion that during the two or three years of negotiations with Astro, defendant did not know that Astro had a plant in Illinois or that the machines were sold to Astro for use at a plant other than in Illinois. No reference is made regarding service, warranty or replacement parts that would normally be a part of such transactions and could shed light on contacts or contemplated contacts with any of the sovereign states of the United States.
The affidavit also states that defendant "does not own or operate any manufacturing plant or other business in Illinois"; that "MIW has not in the past employed any business or other agents in Illinois nor maintained any office in the State"; and that "[a]ll witnesses to the design process, manufacturing decisions, and assembly process are in Japan."
Considering the well-pleaded facts of plaintiff's complaint and resolving all factual disputes in favor of plaintiff, we can conclude that defendant knew that Astro had a plant in Illinois and that two of the machines purchased by Astro were intended for use in its plant in Alsip, Illinois.
To sustain the exercise of long arm jurisdiction, under sections 2-209(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, pars. 2-209(a)(1), (a)(2)), plaintiffs must show: (1) that defendant transacted business in Illinois or committed a tortious act within Illinois; (2) that the cause of action arose from the acts enumerated; and (3) that personal jurisdiction was consistent with due process. (Green v. Advance Ross Electronics Corp. (1981), 86 Ill.2d 431, 56 Ill.Dec. 657, 427 N.E.2d 1203.) Plaintiff has the burden of proving a valid basis for the assertion of jurisdiction over the defendant. In order to meet this burden, it is only necessary that there be a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists. (Bobka v. Cook County Hospital (1st Dist.1983), 117 Ill.App.3d 359, 360-61, 73 Ill.Dec. 3, 453 N.E.2d 828, appeal denied, 99 Ill.2d 527.) In determining whether there has been such a showing, we must accept all undenied well-pleaded allegations in plaintiff's complaint as true and resolve all factual disputes in plaintiff's favor. Mandalay Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Hoffman (1st Dist.1986), 141 Ill.App.3d 891, 895, 96 Ill.Dec. 225, 491 N.E.2d 39.
It is undisputed that defendant, a Japanese corporation, has no office or agent in Illinois and does not own any real estate in Illinois. Defendant sold its machine directly to Astro in Japan without utilizing any middlemen such as agents or distributors. Under such circumstances, we must determine if it is possible for defendant to be engaged in "[t]he transaction of any business within this state." Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, par. 2-209(a)(1).
The influx of foreign products to our shores and the dominance of some of our major markets by foreign enterprises against their American competitors has become a matter of national concern. (State of the Union Address by President Reagan (January 27, 1987).) The defendant cannot insulate itself from jurisdiction of the Illinois courts by making the sale and delivery of the machines to Astro in Japan. Although it did not directly transact business in Illinois with its physical presence, the defendant did transact business in Illinois "as a matter of commercial actuality." (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969), 71 Cal.2d 893, 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 120, 458 P.2d 57, 64.) In Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. (1961), 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761, the Illinois Supreme Court stated:
(22 Ill.2d 432, 442, 176 N.E.2d 761.) Commenting favorably on Gray, the California Supreme Court said:
"A manufacturer's economic relationship with a state does not necessarily differ in substance, nor should its amenability to jurisdiction necessarily differ, depending upon whether it deals directly or indirectly with residents of the state."
The circumstances of defendant's sale of two of the machines to Astro were such that it knew or should reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose v. Franchetti
...... Omni Capital International v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 713 F. Supp. 1206 U.S. 97, 108 .... In Wiles v. Morita Iron Works Co., 152 Ill.App.3d 782, ......
-
TCA Intern., Inc. v. B & B Custom Auto, Inc.
...Inc. v. Sodick Co. Ltd., 186 Ill.App.3d 656, 663, 134 Ill.Dec. 446, 542 N.E.2d 792, 796 (1989); Wiles v. Morita Iron Works Co., 152 Ill.App.3d 782, 105 Ill.Dec. 657, 504 N.E.2d 942 (1987), rev'd on other grounds, 125 Ill.2d 144, 125 Ill.Dec. 812, 530 N.E.2d 1382 (1988); Gordon v. Tow, 148 I......
-
Finnegan v. Les Pourvoiries Fortier, Inc., s. 1-88-0370
...the party asserting jurisdiction to state only a prima facie case in order to prevail. See Wiles v. Morita Iron Works Co. (1987), 152 Ill.App.3d 782, 105 Ill.Dec. 657, 504 N.E.2d 942, rev'd on other grounds (1988), 125 Ill.2d 144, 125 Ill.Dec. 812, 530 N.E.2d 1382; Gordon v. Tow (1986), 148......
-
Loos v. American Energy Savers, Inc.
...... (R.W. Sawant & Co. v. Allied Programs Corp. (1986), 111 Ill.2d , 95 Ill.Dec. 496, 489 N.E.2d 1360; Wiles v. Morita Iron Works Co. (1987), 152 Ill.App.3d ... (Mandalay Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Hoffman (1986), 141 Ill.App.3d ......