Sarah FackrellPersonal jurisdiction in the 7th Circuit:
In Liu v. Monthly, No. 25-02074, which will be argued today, the appellant argues that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in the NDIL because they "did not sell or ship a single accused product to Illinois."
#CivProMatters
The plaintiff-appellant did not show on appeal.
But the #ScheduleA plaintiffs' "bar association," SAFE, filed an amicus brief.
SAFE requested--and received--permission to argue the plaintiffs' side.
SAFE argues that an offer to sell and ship products into the forum state is enough to satisfy the requirement of purposeful availment:
"Appellants were open for business in Illinois and reasonably could have foreseen their products being sold in Illinois."
Now, technically, SAFE is an amicus here. In a normal case, you might leave those pesky SCOTUS cases to the parties.
But here, SAFE has asked to argue the plaintiffs' side. And I suspect that the 7th Circuit judges will want to hear about these cases.
Looks like the defendant-appellant didn't mention Nicastro either. Am I the only person who thinks that's potentially relevant to these cases?
The appellant argues that the 4(k) issue is not properly before the court but that, if it were, personal jurisdiction would be appropriate in Arkansas:
Following argument, I don't think this will end with a decision that really digs into these issues.
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:hvwhptk4oerwsuzau66ikwfy/post/3mfcorzzhkk2f
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:hvwhptk4oerwsuzau66ikwfy/post/3mfcorzzhkk2f