“[T]he district court clearly has authority to enforce strictly its Local Rules, even if a default results.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he district court clearly has authority to enforce strictly its Local Rules, even if a default results.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARY E. ROMIG )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-1101-SMY
)
MW CUSTOM PAPERS, LLC, as )
Successor-in-Interest to THE MEAD )
CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal Inc. as successor-in-interest to The
Bendix Corporation (“Honeywell”) (Doc. 12). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.1
Honeywell argues that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it in this case. A district
court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant “who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of
general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A).
Thus, a district court sitting in Illinois must inquire whether the “defendant has certain minimum
contact with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.’” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014) (quoting
1 The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely response as an admission of the merits of the motion. See
Local Rule 7.1(c) (requiring a response to a motion to dismiss be filed 30 days after service of the motion and stating
a failure to timely respond may be deemed an admission of the merits of the motion); see also Tobel v. City of
Hammond, 94 F.3d 360, 362 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he district court clearly has authority to enforce strictly its Local
Rules, even if a default results.”).
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853 (2011)). Personal
jurisdiction may be either specific or general. Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. at 701-03.
Specific jurisdiction exists when an out-of-state “defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his
activities at residents of the forum, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984),
and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to those activities’
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).” Burger King Corp.
v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 (1985). General jurisdiction exists over foreign corporations
“when their affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them
essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2851. The place of incorporation
and principal place of business are ‘paradig[m] . . . bases for general jurisdiction.” Daimler AG,
134 S. Ct. at 760 (quoting Brilmayer et al, A General Look at General Jurisdiction, 66 Texas L.
Rev. 721, 735 (1988)).
Here, Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio. Her Complaint alleges that she was exposed to
asbestos from automotive repair work performed by her father from 1946 to 1965 while she resided
in the family home located in Ohio. Plaintiff also alleges that she was exposed to asbestos from
her work as an assembly worker at a Borg-Warner facility located in Bellwood, Illinois from 1965
to 1973 and from her husband’s work at Borg-Warner from 1966 to 1973. The Complaint is devoid
of any allegation that Plaintiff’s alleged injuries arose out of or relate to Honeywell's contacts with
Illinois; there are no specific allegations that Plaintiff worked with or around any products or
equipment attributable to Honeywell while she worked at the Borg-Warner facility or at any time
while she resided in Illinois. As such, this Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
claims against Honeywell.
With respect to general jurisdiction, Honeywell is neither incorporated in Illinois nor
maintains its principal place of business in Illinois — it is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in North Carolina. Moreover, Honeywell’s affiliations with Illinois are not “so
continuous and systematic” as to render it at home in Illinois.
Accordingly, Defendant Honeywell's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. As no Counts
remain pending against this Defendant, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment
accordingly at the close of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 21, 2022
Aes KM Goll
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3