Chicago, Firm News

Tabirta v. Cummings Ruling Amplifies Change of Venue Thresholds in Illinois

December 2, 2020

Tabirta v. Cummings

Johnson & Bell Shareholder Rory L. Margulis analyzes the recent Tabirta v. Cummings ruling that addresses whether one part-time employee who services a few customers from his home in Cook County satisfies the “other office” or “doing business” prongs of section 2-102(a) of the venue statute.  735 ILCS 5/2-102(a) (West 2016).

The plaintiff truck driver, a resident of Cook County, was severely injured in a truck collision involving an employee of an Ohio corporation. The Ohio corporation, the defendant, does not have a registered office in Cook County, and only has a small percentage of sales coming from Cook County, so has denied “doing business” in Cook County. The court subsequently had to answer whether one part-time employee, who services very few of the defendant corporations customers from his home in Cook County, satisfies the “other office” or “doing business” prongs of section 2-102(a) of the venue statute.  735 ILCS 5/2-102(a) (West 2016). The circuit court ruled that the defendant was not “doing business” in Cook County, but denied the motion to transfer venue. The appellate court confirmed the “other office” holding and did not reach the alternate “doing business” issue.

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit and appellate court rulings, stating that the part-time employee’s home in Cook County did not constitute an “other office” of the corporation. The employee was hired by the Ohio corporation because of his experience, not because he resided in Cook County. His address was subsequently not listed on the company website, nor was his home advertised as being a part of the corporation. The court explained that more is required for a move of venue than the “minimal contacts” of the “doing business” prong to subject a defendant to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts. The court also determined that the quantity and/or volume of business conducted in Cook County is a relevant factor, and that the work conducted in the Cook County residence did not involve the sale of any products and was merely incidental to the corporation’s usual business.

View All Insights

Stay Connected

Join our e-newsletter for the latest
from Johnson & Bell.

Related Attorney(s)

Johnson & Bell

33 West Monroe Street
Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois
60603-5404
© 2022 Johnson & Bell, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.