Be2 LLC v. Ivanov

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that out-of- state dating website operator was not subject to jurisdiction in Illinois where “the 20 Chicagoans who created free profiles on [the defendant’s website] may have done so unilaterally by stumbling across the website ….”
• noting that the entry of a judgment when the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void
• holding personal jurisdiction did not exist where there was no “evidence of any interactions between Ivanov and the be2.net members with Illinois addresses”
• distinguishing uBID and finding no personal jurisdiction where the record did not show that defendant deliberately targeted or exploited the Illinois market
• holding judgments entered without personal jurisdiction are void
• describing the defendant in uBID as “massive[ly] and successful[ly]” exploiting the Illinois market “through an advertising campaign that produced hundreds of thousands of customers in the state and millions of dollars in annual revenues”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).