Shingua Tire Case Study

COMES NOW Defendants, Shingua Tire Co. Ltd. (“Shingua Tire”), by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The Cause at hand represents a negligence claim against Shingua Tire. Plaintiff further alleges that Shingua Tire assumed a duty to the employees of its subsidiary Shingua Tire Illinois and failed to exercise reasonable care in rendering services to said employees. Plaintiff John
Tungston, spouse of Plaintiff Linda Tungston, also submits a claim of loss of services due to the injuries sustained by his wife. Defendant Shingua Tire contends there exist no ties to the State of
Illinois which would
Shingua Tire
Illinois, LLC separately manufactures tires for sale in the U.S. market. ¶34,35. Shingua Tire
Illinois, LLC tires are not sold in China.
ARGUMENT
The Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Shingua Tire does not maintain the proper continuous, systematic ties or contacts required to exercise personal jurisdiction. To exercise personal jurisdiction over
Shingua Tire would be inconsistent with the Courts interpretation of due process.
In a federal question case, a federal Court may exercise personal jurisdiction if it would be permitted to do so under the Illinois long-arm statute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). A state's exercise of personal jurisdiction is also subject to due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Because Illinois permits personal jurisdiction if it would be authorized by either the state or federal constitutions, both requirements become singular. See State of Illinois v. Hemi
Group LLC, 622 F.3d at 756–57; Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2010), citing
735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2–209(c). Generally, personal jurisdiction is divided into two
Shingua Tire Illinois makes tires for the United States market and does not sell them in China. However, assuming arguendo that Shingua Tire Illinois is a subsidiary, the 7th Circuit has held that “’jurisdiction over a subsidiary is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction over an out-of-state parent.’ citing IDS, 958 F.Supp. at 1265–66. The mere existence of a parentsubsidiary relationship does not enable a court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign parent.
Instead, the party arguing for jurisdiction must allege something more than the existence of the parent-subsidiary relationship and that the subsidiary is doing business in Illinois.” Gruca v.
Alpha Therapeutic Corp., 19 F. Supp. 2d 862, 865 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Contacts that are limited to the forum state may give rise to specific personal jurisdiction. The long-standing rule for a finding of specific jurisdiction is that the entity subject to jurisdiction maintain “certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v.