In Tabirta v. Cummings, 2020 IL 124798 (Ill. 2020), The question before the Court was whether the existence of one part-time employee who services a few of a defendant corporation’s customers from his home in Cook County satisfies the “other office” or “doing business” prongs of section 2-102(a) of the Illinois venue statute. 735 ILCS 5/2-102(a) (West 2016).
The plaintiff truck driver, a Cook County resident, was severely injured during a collision with a truck driven by an employee of the defendant corporation in Ohio. The defendant corporation did not have a registered office in Cook County and denied “doing business” in Cook County because only a small percentage of annual sales (0.19% in 2016 and 0.47% at most in the last five years) occurred there and the location of its one employee in Cook County was of no relevance to his employment. The circuit court agreed that the defendant was not “doing business” in Cook County but denied the motion to transfer venue, ruling that the Cook County residence of the service employee constituted an “other office.” The appellate court affirmed the “other office” holding and did not reach the alternate “doing business” issue.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding the part-time employee’s home in Cook County did not constitute an “other office” of the corporation. The corporation hired the employee because of his experience, not because of the location of his home; the home address was not listed on the corporation’s website or in any public or internal directories; there was no signage on the home; and no customers came to the home. The telephone extension rang on the employee’s cell phone and had no physical connection to the home.
As to the “doing business” prong, the court explained more is required for venue than the “minimal contacts” required to subject a defendant to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts. A relevant factor to consider is the quantity or volume of business conducted in the county. Here, not only was the volume of the defendant’s sales insufficient, but 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 and customary business.