Another 5 involved further investment by plaintiffs in VSP invoices and a plan for repayment of the VSP entities outstanding obligations to plaintiffs. Neither of these deals closed, but the parties continued to work together until at least February 14, 2016. As noted, defendants do not dispute any of the above facts, which I conclude (visit site) satisfy all three requirements for personal jurisdiction. In their reply, defendants point, in succession, to the various types of case-related forum contacts the Edmonson affidavit identifies, supports personal and insist jurisdiction. that none This of them, argument alone, fails to appreciate, however, that defendants case-related contacts with Illinois must be viewed in the aggregate. Accordingly, their arguments that: 1) injuries felt in the forum state alone are insufficient, see Reply at 2; 2) defendants emails to plaintiffs alone are insufficient, id., at 3; and 3) defendants two meetings with plaintiffs in Illinois alone are insufficient, id., at 3-4, ring hollow. Moreover, the cases on which defendants rely are factually distinct and did not address the kinds of ongoing conduct directed to the forum that the Edmonson affidavit articulates. See Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2014) (placement of publications, advertisements email blasts in non-geographically received by forum restricted residents, fulfillment of orders placed by forum residents, and maintenance 6 of interactive website insufficient to support personal jurisdiction); United Airlines, Inc. v.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2016cv06150/327710/29/