EAST ST. LOUIS - Matt Auffenberg of St. Clair County established Illinois jurisdiction over his claim that software provider Addmi Inc. of Albuquerque failed to repay loans of $1,325,000, U.S. Magistrate Gilbert Sison ruled on Nov. 9.
Sison denied a motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction or transfer it to New Mexico, finding Auffenberg outlined Addmi’s contacts with Illinois at length.
Sison relied on an almost identical case where First District appellate judges applied the state’s long arm statute to negotiation of an agreement by telephone and email.
Jarrod Beasley of Belleville filed the suit in June, stating Auffenberg made three loans totaling $1 million in 2020 and a fourth loan for $325,000 this February.
He claimed Addmi chief executive Andy Lim violated terms of the fourth loan by commingling it for personal and family uses.
He claimed Auffenberg demanded repayment by May 26, and Addmi failed to repay.
Addmi counsel Christopher Miller of St. Louis County moved to dismiss or transfer in September, claiming Addmi has no offices, employees or operations in Illinois.
He claimed the notes between Addmi and Auffenberg were negotiated and executed in New Mexico and were to be performed there.
He also claimed the principal amount of each note was paid to Addmi by wire transfer directed to a bank in New Mexico.
“No payments were made to Addmi in Illinois,” he wrote.
“It would not be reasonable for Addmi to anticipate that entering into the notes could cause it to be haled into court in the State of Illinois,” he added.
Beasley responded that, “Defendant borrowed money from an Illinois resident, breached the contract to repay the debt and now seems shocked at having to come to the Southern District of Illinois to answer for that breach.”
“Plaintiff should not be expected to file lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions solely for the convenience of defendants,” he wrote.
He attached a declaration of former Addmi chief operating officer Michael Board stating he discovered that Lim charged personal expenses to a company credit card.
Sison found Auffenberg didn’t allege that an Illinois court could exercise general jurisdiction but alleged that an Illinois court could exercise jurisdiction specific to the case.
He found specific jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s contacts directly relate to a challenged conduct or transaction.
He added that a plaintiff demonstrates specific jurisdiction if a defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Illinois or purposefully directed activities towards the state, and if the injury alleged in the complaint arose from those activities.
He has set trial to begin next October.