Howard v. Missouri Bone and Joint Center

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 5th District Appellate » 2007 » Howard v. Missouri Bone and Joint Center

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-05-0476 Rel

Case Date: 04/24/2007

Preview:NO. 5-05-0476
N O T IC E Decision filed 04/24/07. The text of this dec ision m ay b e changed or corrected prior to the P e t i ti o n for filing of a or the

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

Re hea ring

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ ALVIN HOWARD, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, ) St. Clair County. ) v. ) No. 02-L-48 ) MISSOURI BONE AND JOINT CENTER, ) INC., ) Honorable ) Lloyd A. Cueto, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE WEXSTTEN 1 delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff, Alvin Howard, appeals the circuit court's order finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, Missouri Bone and Joint Center, Inc. We affirm. FACTS On January 23, 2002, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages for physical injuries and monetary losses arising out of the defendant's negligence in providing athletic training services to him in Missouri. On March 1, 2002, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for a lack of personal jurisdiction. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted an affidavit from Leo A. Whiteside, the defendant's president, setting forth the following facts. The defendant is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Missouri. The defendant has no facilities in Illinois. The defendant owns

disposition of the same.

1

Justice Hopkins participated in oral argument. Justice Wexstten was later substituted

on the panel and has read the briefs and listened to the audiotape of oral argument. 1

no property in Illinois. The defendant transacts no business in Illinois. The defendant is not registered to do business in Illinois. The fitness center that the defendant owns and operates has no activities conducted at locations other than the M issouri facility. The plaintiff's attorney filed an affidavit in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction. In the affidavit, the plaintiff's attorney stated that the defendant maintains an interactive website at mobojo.com that is accessible to persons residing in Illinois. Persons who access the website can fill out a form to request an appointment, fill out a patient survey, and contact the defendant with comments. The plaintiff's attorney stated that the defendant admitted sending flyers to high school and college coaches within a 100-mile radius (which included Illinois) inviting coaches to attend informational meetings. The plaintiff's attorney stated that the defendant admitted giving a presentation on injury prevention at Sparta High School, located in Sparta, Illinois, on April 5, 2002. On July 9, 2002, the circuit court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal to this court, but the petition was denied. Approximately three years later, at the conclusion of the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence at a bench trial, the defendant renewed the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for a lack of personal jurisdiction. The renewed motion was denied. On May 13, 2005, the circuit court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $458,470.03. On June 1, 2005, the defendant filed a motion for a rehearing/modification and to vacate the judgment. The defendant asked the court to reconsider, inter alia , its ruling on personal jurisdiction. The defendant incorporated its previous motion to dismiss and the memorandum in support thereof and directed the court's attention to case law that had been filed subsequent to the original hearing.

2

On July 22, 2005, the circuit court vacated the earlier judgment in favor of the plaintiff, declared that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and dismissed the case for a lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff appeals. ANALYSIS The plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in considering the defendant's motion for a rehearing on the issue of personal jurisdiction. We disagree. Section 2-1203(a) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure states: "

Download Howard v. Missouri Bone and Joint Center.pdf