BlogLine

Illinois defendant’s case dismissed when plaintiff put cart before the horse

9/23/24

By: Donald Patrick Eckler and Madeline Krolczyk

In a world where the protection of personal jurisdiction eroded following the Mallory and Ford decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District in Odarczenko v. Polaris Industries, Inc. et al., 2024 IL App (4th) 230790 bucked that trend. The reviewing court affirmed a circuit court’s decision to grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss and deny jurisdictional discovery where a plaintiff failed to plead a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.  

George Odarczenko, administrator of the Estate of Victoria Odarczenko, filed a products liability suit against Richmond Motorsports LLC for its sale of a motorized utility task vehicle (UTV) to Nathan P. Zeien, who operated the UTV when it was involved in an accident that resulted in his passenger Victoria Odarczenko’s death. Odarczenko alleged that the UTV’s roll bar was defectively designed.  

At the outset of the litigation, Richmond filed several motions to dismiss as Odarczenko concurrently issued jurisdictional discovery. The circuit court granted Richmond’s motions to dismiss without prejudice but also ordered Richmond to answer the limited discovery. After a change of judge, Odarczenko’s jurisdictional discovery was precluded in its entirety, and Richmond’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.  

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the granted motion to dismiss. Further, it held that the circuit judge did not abuse discretion by limiting and later denying jurisdictional discovery.  

Illinois Supreme Rule 201(l)(1) states that while a motion is pending under 2-301, parties have a right to jurisdictional discovery. While Richmond submitted to the jurisdiction of the circuit court for the limited issue of determining if there was personal jurisdiction over it, the circuit court held, and the reviewing court found, no abuse of discretion under Rule 201(c)(1) that a court may limit jurisdictional discovery when the pleadings do not convincingly assert personal jurisdiction.  

This case highlights the key issue of “pleading first, discovery later.” If a plaintiff lacks enough salient information to demonstrate the existence of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff faces a problem. It is not enough to plead jurisdiction and hope to receive jurisdictional discovery while motions are pending. The appellate court emphasized that if a plaintiff cannot bear the burden of the initial pleading threshold, the case should not be filed in the first place. The court noted the policy decisions of Rule 137(a), holding that requests for jurisdictional discovery cannot substitute the prima facie requirements in pleadings. Parties should be cognizant of these issues to ensure that a pleading has salient facts supporting personal jurisdiction rather than gambling the case for jurisdictional discovery to fill in information gaps. It is critical that defense attorneys be aware of this case to support motions to dismiss where plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their pleading requirements. This case is a powerful tool for defense counsel to resolve cases early and on procedural grounds.  

Please contact Donald Patrick Eckler at patrick.eckler@fmglaw.com, Madeline M. Krolczyk at madeline.krolczyk@fmglaw.com, or your FMG relationship partner to learn more.