Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Mitchell v. First Northern Credit Union, No. 07 C 1891, 2007 WL 2948374 (N.D. Ill. October 4, 2007) (Norgle, J.).

Judge Norgle granted defendant Arizona State Credit Union’s ("ASCU") motion to transfer to the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 in this patent dispute. The Court acknowledged that plaintiff’s chosen forum was given significant weight. But the ease of access to the evidence in Arizona dictated that the case be transferred. Plaintiff was an Arizona resident, at least as of his filing date. And ASCU, all of its documents and all of its employees were in Arizona.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Chicago Architecture Foundation v. Domain Magic LLC, No. 07 C 764, Slip Op. (N.D.Ill. October 12, 2007) (Norgle, J.).

Judge Norgle denied defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although defendant was a Florida corporation, defendant’s website – www.chicagoarchitecturefoundation.com – played upon plaintiff Chicago Architecture Foundation’s (“CAF”) name and only included links to other Chicago businesses. The Court, therefore, held that defendant’s website targeted the Northern District creating general personal jurisdiction.

Additionally, as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanction for failing to answer interrogatory responses as the Court ordered, the Court held that defendant generated revenue from the use of CAF’s trademark. 

Practice tip: Answer discovery requests on time and, if you cannot for some reason, at least answer them by the Court ordered deadline. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 06 C 5812, 2007 WL 1169704 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2007) (Norgle, J.).

Judge Norgle denied defendants' motion to stay based upon Colorado River abstention, which the Court noted was more properly referred to as Colorado River deference since it is not strictly abstention.  This case had a tortured procedural history: 

• Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance ("MetLife") initially filed an action against corporate defendant Guardian Life Insurance ("Guardian") and certain former MetLife employees that had taken positions with Guardian based upon claims that the former employees had breached covenants in their employment agreements and stolen certain MetLife information to start a competing office for Guardian.  The state court dismissed those claims, but on appeal the the Illinois appellate court held that MetLife had voluntarily dismissed the claims. 
• MetLife also brought a related arbitration claim against Guardian and various former MetLife employees before the National Association of Security Dealers (the "NASD").  That action is still pending, but Guardian is no longer a party. 
• MetLife also sued Guardian and defendant O'M Associates (the "corporate defendants") and various former MetLife employees twice in the Northern District.  The first case was dismissed based upon a common arbitration provision in MetLife's employment agreement.
• The second case, which is the instant case, was brought only against the corporate defendants.

Defendants motion to stay argued that the Court should stay the case based upon the related, co-pending state court matter.  But the Court held that Colorado River deference was not applicable because the Illinois Supreme Court had already denied Guardian's petition for leave to appeal which was a final resolution of the state court case. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks