See, e.g., Keller, 359 Ill. App. 3d at 618-19. But where the plaintiff-buyer initiated a purchase and the contract was performed in the defendant's state, jurisdiction has been found to be lacking. See, e.g., Excel Energy Co. v. Pittman, 239 Ill. App. 3d 160, 164 (1992); see also Forrester v. Seven Seventeen HB St. Louis Redevelopment Corp., 336 Ill. App. 3d 572, 581 (2002); Campbell, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 628-29. For example, the facts of this appeal are similar to those of Excel Energy, where jurisdiction was found to be lacking.
As plaintiff correctly states, two criteria must be satisfied in order for courts of this State to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: (1) the requirements of the long-arm statute and (2) the requirements of due process. ( Excel Energy Co. v. Pittman (1992), 239 Ill. App.3d 160, 163, 606 N.E.2d 637, 639; Gordon v. Tow (1986), 148 Ill. App.3d 275, 279, 498 N.E.2d 718, 721.
(Citation omitted.) Dehmlow v. Austin Fireworks, 963 F.2d 941, 945 (7th Cir. 1992); see Excel Energy Co., Inc. v. Pittman, 60 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ill.App. 1992) ("The assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must satisfy the requirements of due process as well as those of the long-arm statute."). In the Order, the Illinois court stated that it had jurisdiction over the defendants "by reason of the Defendant(s)' having made or performed a contract substantially connected with the State of Illinois . . . ."
Pilipauskas, 258 Ill. App. 3d at 59. This case is also similar to Excel Energy Co. v. Pittman, 239 Ill. App. 3d 160, 164 (1992), where the plaintiffs found an advertisement for equipment sold by the defendant in a national magazine, contacted the defendant about buying the equipment, and then traveled to Oklahoma to purchase the equipment. The court found that exercising jurisdiction over the defendants would offend due process.
Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction. R.W. Sawant Co. v. Allied Programs Corp., 111 Ill.2d 304, 95 Ill.Dec. 496, 499, 489 N.E.2d 1360, 1363 (1986); Excel Energy Co., Inc. v. Pittman, 239 Ill.App.3d 160, 179 Ill.Dec. 805, 807, 606 N.E.2d 637, 639 (1992). A. "Doing Business" in Illinois
Riemer v. KSL Recreation Corp., 348 Ill. App. 3d 26, 36 (2004); Kadala v. Cunard Lines, Ltd., 226 Ill. App. 3d 302, 310 (1992). In Excel Energy Co. v. Pittman, 239 Ill. App. 3d 160, 163 (1992), the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a suit regarding defective oil field equipment, even though the plaintiff responded to the defendant's ad in a national magazine. More recently, in Howard v. Missouri Bone Joint Center, Inc., 373 Ill. App. 3d 738 (2007), the plaintiff alleged negligence in providing athletic training services in Missouri.
Pilipauskas, 258 Ill. App. 3d at 59, 629 N.E.2d at 741. In Excel Energy Co. v. Pittman, 239 Ill. App. 3d 160, 606 N.E.2d 637 (1992), the plaintiffs found an advertisement for equipment sold by defendant in a national magazine, contacted defendant about buying the equipment, and then traveled to Oklahoma to purchase the equipment. The court found that exercising jurisdiction over defendants would offend due process.
In Stein v. Rio Parismina Lodge, 296 Ill. App.3d 520, 526, 695 N.E.2d 518, 522-23 (1998), this court did not focus on the defendant's alleged misrepresentation by mail, and noted that plaintiff initiated the contact with that defendant. In Excel Energy Co., Inc. v. Pittman, 239 Ill. App.3d 160, 164, 606 N.E.2d 637, 640 (1992), this court held that the defendant did not purposefully direct his activities at Illinois residents, noting that: "[t]he plaintiffs found the advertisement for the equipment in a magazine, sought out the defendant and inquired about purchasing the equipment, and took delivery of the equipment in Oklahoma."