| Litigants: | Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC |
| Courtseal: | Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg |
| Decidedate: | September 14, |
| Decideyear: | 2010 |
| Fullname: | State of Illinois, ex. rel. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC |
| Citations: | 622 F.3d 754 |
| Holding: | The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Hemi's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Internet transactions of cigarettes sufficed to establish personal jurisdiction over Hemi in Illinois. |
| Majority: | Kanne |
Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010), was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois' ruling finding personal jurisdiction based on Internet transactions. In the initial filing, the state of Illinois sued Hemi Group LLC (Hemi) for selling cigarettes to Illinois residents over the Internet in violation of state law and for failing to report those sales in violation of federal law. Hemi moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the district court found that the Internet transactions provided a basis for Hemi to be sued in Illinois.
Hemi, based out of New Mexico and without any ties to Illinois, sold discount cigarettes through several websites. Customers could place orders online or through fax, mail, or telephone. Illinois alleged that Hemi sold cigarettes to Illinois residents via its websites, though the only sale Illinois identified in its complaint was instigated by a special agent of the Illinois Department of Revenue.
On several of its websites, Hemi stated that it would not sell cigarettes to New York residents due to ongoing litigation there, but no exception was made to Illinois residents. Hemi's website directed customers to check with their respective states to determine the amount, if any, of state taxes associated with their order.
Specifically, Illinois sued Hemi in Illinois state court for:
Hemi removed the suit from Illinois state court to federal district court and moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court found that Illinois could not exercise general jurisdiction over Hemi because Hemi lacked the "continuous and systematic general business contacts" to satisfy general jurisdiction. However, the district court held that Hemi could be amenable to specific jurisdiction, finding that Hemi purposefully availed itself of the opportunity of doing business with Illinois residents and that exercising personal jurisdiction over Hemi would not offend due process.
For a more in-depth discussion of the concept of personal jurisdiction and its sub-concepts of general and specific jurisdiction, see personal jurisdiction and International Shoe doctrine
The question on appeal before the Seventh Circuit was whether the Illinois district court could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Hemi.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Hemi's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Internet transactions of cigarettes sufficed to establish personal jurisdiction over Hemi in Illinois.
Hemi argued that a line of Illinois appellate opinions demonstrated that Illinois law required more than federal law with regard to satisfying due process standards for personal jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument, finding that none of the cases cited by Hemi even suggested a meaningful difference between the federal and Illinois due process standards, and that at least one of the cases cited by Hemi only discussed the distinction in the theoretical context. Though the Seventh Circuit noted that the district court may only exercise jurisdiction only if both federal and state constitutional elements are satisfied, it also stated that it was unaware of cases where personal jurisdiction could be satisfied under the U.S. Constitution, but not under the Illinois Constitution. Hence, the Seventh Circuit limited its analysis as to whether exercising personal jurisdiction over Hemi would comport with the federal guarantee of due process.
Drawing from International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the Seventh Circuit began by noting that personal jurisdiction may be proper where a defendant has certain minimum contacts that do not violate "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."Relevant to this analysis are the following factors:
Here, the Seventh Circuit found that Hemi's contacts with Illinois were sufficient to satisfy due process. The court noted that Hemi maintained "commercial websites" that customers could use to create accounts, purchase cigarettes, and calculate shipping charges based on their ZIP codes.
The Seventh Circuit rejected Hemi's argument that it did not purposefully avail itself of doing business in Illinois. Hemi stated on its website that it would ship to any state except New York. The court observed that Hemi's reluctance to ship to New York was important for two reasons:
Hence, the court reasoned that Hemi's decision not to do business with New York indicated that it should have foreseen being brought to court in Illinois for selling cigarettes to Illinois residents.
The Seventh Circuit also rejected Hemi's argument that its sales to Illinois customers were due to the unilateral actions by customers. The court found that Hemi, via its several commercial and interactive websites, reached out to Illinois residents to sell cigarettes, and therefore minimum contacts was satisfied. ("It is Hemi reaching out to residents of Illinois, and not the residents reaching back, that creates the sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois that justify exercising personal jurisdiction over Hemi in Illinois.")
In Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania laid out a "sliding scale" test for determining specific personal jurisdiction based on the level of Internet interactivity. The Zippo court noted that websites can fall under three general categories:
The Seventh Circuit noted that, though sister circuits have adopted the Zippo sliding scale test, the Seventh Circuit had expressly declined to do so. Citing Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 703 (7th. Cir. 2010), the court stated that it was reluctant "to fashion a special jurisdictional test for Internet-based cases." The Hemi Court reasoned that "the traditional due process inquiry . . . is not so difficult to apply to cases involving Internet contacts that courts need some sort of easier-to-apply categorical test."
The Seventh Circuit further found that specific jurisdiction over Hemi was proper because Illinoi's claims arose out of Hemi's contacts with Illinois. The Court explained that Hemi sold and shipped cigarettes to Illinois residents, thus "trigger[ing] Illinois's claims against it." Though the cigarette sales technically occurred in New Mexico, the Court reasoned that Illinois's suit was based on allegations that Hemi violated Illinois state law and federal law by failing to report its sales, not whether there was a contract between Hemi and its Illinois customers.
The Seventh Circuit further observed that jurisdiction over Hemi would be proper only if, as noted in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, exercising jurisdiction "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
Factors relevant to the fair play and substantial justice analysis include:
In evaluating the above factors, the Seventh Circuit explained that it applies a sliding scale test: "the weaker the defendant's contacts with the forum state are, the less likely it is that exercising jurisdiction over that defendant is appropriate."
Applying those factors to this case, the Seventh Circuit found that exercising jurisdiction over Hemi in Illinois would be fair because:
Though defending the suit in Illinois might be burdensome on Hemi, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that Illinois courts had a strong interest in resolving a dispute that involved the state as a party. Moreover, because Illinois law would be applied, the Court also observed that it would be most convenient for Illinois to have the suit adjudicated in an Illinois court. The Court also noted that "Hemi wants to have its cake and eat it, too: it wants the benefit of a nationwide business model with none of the exposure. There is nothing constitutionally unfair about allowing Illinois, a state with which Hemi has had sufficient minimum contacts, to exercise personal jurisdiction over Hemi."
After Hemi, several law firms warned businesses that selling products on the Internet could potentially make them liable for suit anywhere in the United States. For instance, several law firms cautioned clients that, although Hemi "involved a cigarettes retailer, its rationale could be applied to all Internet retailers." Other commentators observed that the Seventh Circuit's decision in Hemi reflected a "trend away from relying on interactivity of a website as a sole determinant of personal jurisdiction, looking instead toward the more relevant concept of targeting." Moreover, following the Hemi decision, several lawyers began advising clients to include a forum selection clause in their websites' user agreements to at least have the possibility of transferring a lawsuit to their home state.