North v. Ubiquity, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing breach of contract action, after finding that plaintiff-resident of Arizona, lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant-California firm, even though defendant signed subject contract with plaintiff’s former law firm located in Chicago. Dist. Ct. could properly find that contract alone was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over defendant, especially where plaintiff’s own statements, indicating that he and defendant negotiated and executed contract in Arizona, and that he would perform on contract in or from Arizona negated plaintiff’s contention that defendant purposely availed itself of Illinois law when it contracted with plaintiff’s law firm. Also, while 28 USC section 1631 requires Dist. Ct. to transfer cause of action to appropriate Dist. Ct. ”in the interest of justice,” Dist. Ct.’s failure to transfer action to California Dist. Ct. did not require remand, where plaintiff never sought such transfer in Dist. Ct., and where plaintiff conceded that he had seven months after instant dismissal to re-file action in California Dist. Ct., but had failed to do so.