Recycling Sciences Intl. v. Soil Rest. and Recycling

1 Citing case

  1. Contrak, Inc. v. Paramount

    201 F. Supp. 2d 846 (N.D. Ill. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that "[s]everal courts have suggested that affidavits submitted in response to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) must be based on personal knowledge or comply with Rule 56(e), . . . but the Seventh Circuit has not addressed this issue"

    But International was also listed in the sections for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Cleveland, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan, see International Reply Ex. C, so there is evidence that the advertisement in the Tickler was "not solely directed towards the State of Illinois," see DeVooght Aff. ΒΆ 11. A listing in a trade magazine or business guide is insufficient contact with Illinois to constitute the "continuous and systematic" contact required for general jurisdiction. See Recycling Sciences Int'l, Inc. v. Soil Restoration and Recycling L.L.C., No. 00 C 0311, 2001 WL 289868, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2001) (Darrah, J.) (Advertisement in national publication was insufficient basis for general jurisdiction where non-resident defendant had no assets, office, agents, property, inventory, mailing address or telephone number in Illinois.); Singletary v. B.R.X., Inc., 828 F.2d 1135, 1136 (5th Cir. 1987) ("[A]dvertising in national publications is not in itself sufficient to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction.").