You are on page 1of 9

Atty No.

26828
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

IN RE: MARRIAGE OF )
)
JESSE JACKSON, JR., )
)
Petitioner, )
) No: 16 D 6506
and )
)
SANDRA JACKSON, )
)
Respondent. )

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENT TO OBJECTION AND MOTION TO


DISMISS ACTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

NOW COMES the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON (Sandra), by and through her

counsel, SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP, and for her Reply in Support of Supplement

to Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, states as follows:

68. Paragraph 68 of the Petitioners, JESSE JACKSON JR. (Jesse), Response to

Supplement to Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack

of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Response to Supplement)

contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply.

69. Paragraph 69 of Jesses Response to Supplement contains no affirmative

allegations requiring a reply.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENT TO COUNT I:

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF


MARRIAGE DUE TO LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

2287854_1
70. Sandra restates and realleges Paragraphs 68-69 of her Reply as and for Paragraph

70 herein.

71. Sandra states that Section 403 of the IMDMA and Section 2-209 of the Code

speak for themselves and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra states that

Jesses Petition for Dissolution of Marriage speaks for itself. Sandra states that the case law

cited in Paragraph 71 of Jesses Response to Supplement speaks for itself and denies any

characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in

Paragraph 71 of Jesses Response to Supplement that by filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to

Section 2-619 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure that she has admitted the legal sufficiency

of Jesses Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Sandra denies that she was domiciled or resident

in Illinois at the time the cause of action arose.

Sandra affirmatively states that it is Jesses burden to prove that Illinois has jurisdiction

over the subject matter of this cause and personal jurisdiction over Sandra, and Jesse has failed to

meet this burden. Illinois is a fact pleading state in which plaintiffs are required to allege facts

that give rise to their cause of action. Schal Bovis, Inc. v. Casualty Ins. Co., 314 Ill. App. 3d 562,

574 (1st Dist. 1999). The burden of proving a valid basis for the assertion of jurisdiction over a

nonresident defendant rests with the party seeking to impose jurisdiction. R.W. Sawant & Co. v.

Allied Programs Corp., 111 Ill. 2d 304, 310 (1986). Jesses Petition for Dissolution of Marriage

fails to set forth any facts to show that Illinois has personal jurisdiction over Sandra, nor does

Jesse set forth any such facts through any pleadings, documents, or affidavits in this case. As

Jesse has failed to meet his burden, this action should be dismissed.

Additionally, as stated in Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville which is cited by

2287854_1 2
Jesse in his Response to Supplement, when ruling on such motions [pursuant to 735 ILCS

5/2-619], a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts, as well as any reasonable inferences

that may arise from them, but a court cannot accept as true mere conclusions unsupported by

specific facts[.] 2012 IL 113148 (2012). Jesse continues to allege that this Court has jurisdiction

over Sandra based upon mere conclusions unsupported by specific facts. Therefore, Jesses

allegations cannot be accepted as true.

72. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.

Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 72 of Jesses Response to

Supplement that for the reasons articulated in Jesses Response to Sandras Objections and

Motion to Dismiss that this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to both Section 2-209

of the Code and Section 401(a) of the IMDMA. Sandra denies the remaining factual allegations

contained in Paragraph 72 of Jesses Response to Supplement and states that the law regarding

jurisdictional requirements speaks for itself.

73. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.

Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of Jesses Response to

Supplement that as specifically set forth in Jesses Response to Sandras Objections and Motion

to Dismiss that Sandra was domiciled or resident in Illinois at the time the cause of action arose.

Sandra denies that this Court has jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to Section 2-209 of the

Code and Section 401(a) of the IMDMA. Sandra denies the remaining factual allegations

contained in Paragraph 73 of Jesses Response to Supplement and states that the law regarding

jurisdictional requirements speaks for itself.

74. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.

2287854_1 3
Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 74 of Jesses Response to

Supplement that, for the reasons articulated in Jesses Response to Sandras Objections and

Motion to Dismiss, this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to both Section 2-209 of

the Code and Section 401(a) of the IMDMA. Sandra denies the remaining factual allegations

contained in Paragraph 74 of Jesses Response to Supplement and states that the law regarding

jurisdictional requirements speaks for itself.

75. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.

Sandra states that the case law and statutes cited in Paragraph 77 of Jesses Response to

Supplement speak for themselves and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra

denies that this cause of action arose from Sandras activities in Illinois. Sandra denies that this

cause of action arose from the parties maintenance of a domicile in Illinois at the time this cause

of action arose. Sandra denies that she was domiciled or resident within Illinois when this cause

of action arose. Sandra denies that this Court has both general and specific jurisdiction over

Sandra.

76. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.

Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 76 of Jesses Response to

Supplement that, for the reasons articulated in Jesses Response to Sandras Objection and

Motion to Dismiss, this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to both Section 2-209 of

the Code and Section 401 of the IMDMA. Sandra denies the remaining factual allegations

contained in Paragraph 76 of Jesses Response to Supplement and states that the law regarding

jurisdictional requirements speaks for itself.

77. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.

2287854_1 4
Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 77 of Jesses Response to

Supplement that Jesse and Sandra maintained a marital residence in Illinois when the cause of

action arose. Sandra denies that, for the reasons articulated in Jesses Response to Sandras

Objection and Motion to Dismiss, this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to both

Section 2-209 of the Code and Section 401 of the IMDMA. Sandra denies the remaining factual

allegations contained in Paragraph 72 of Jesses Response to Supplement and states that the law

regarding jurisdictional requirements speaks for itself.

78. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.

Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 78 of Jesses Response to

Supplement that, for the reasons articulated in Jesses Response to Sandras Objection and

Motion to Dismiss, this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to both Section 2-209 of

the Code and Section 401 of the IMDMA. Sandra denies the remaining factual allegations

contained in Paragraph 78 of Jesses Response to Supplement and states that the law regarding

jurisdictional requirements speaks for itself.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON, prays for the following relief,

instanter:

A. That this Court enter an order dismissing this action due to lack of personal

jurisdiction; and

B. For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem equitable and just.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENT TO COUNT II:

MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO LACK


OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-619

79. Sandra restates and realleges Paragraphs 68-78 of her Reply as and for Paragraph

2287854_1 5
79 herein.

Wherefore, the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON, prays for the following relief, instanter:

A. For the entry of an Order dismissing this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to the IMDMA and UCCJEA; and

B. For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem equitable and just.

SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP


Attorneys for Respondent

BY: JESSICA BANK INTERLANDI

SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP


Attorney No. 26828
Attorneys for Respondent
200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1089
Telephone No. (312) 641-5560
Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361
Service by Facsimile Transmission Will Be Accepted
Service Preferred at: chicagoservice@sdflaw.com

2287854_1 6
STATE OF ILLINOIS )

)
COUNTY OF COOK )

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I certify that the

statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct except as to matters therein stated to

be on information and belief and as to such matters I certify that I verily believe the same to be

true.

DATED: _________________________

SANDRA JACKSON

SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP


Attorney No. 26828
Attorneys for Respondent
200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1089
Telephone No. (312) 641-5560
Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361
Service by Facsimile Transmission Will Be Accepted
Service Preferred at: chicagoservice@sdflaw.com

2287854_1 7
Atty No. 26828
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

IN RE: MARRIAGE OF )
)
JESSE JACKSON, JR., )
)
Petitioner, )
) No: 16 D 6506
and )
)
SANDRA JACKSON, )
)
Respondent. )

AFFIDAVIT OF SANDRA JACKSON IN SUPPORT OF HER REPLY IN SUPPORT OF


SUPPLEMENT TO OBJECTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

I, SANDRA JACKSON, herein certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to Section

1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure as follows:

1. I am the Respondent in the above-captioned matter, which remains

pending and undetermined.

2. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, all of the statements in my

Reply in Support of Supplement to Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for

Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction stated herein are true and correct.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I certify that the

statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct except as to matters therein stated to

2287854_1 8
be on information and belief, and, as to such matters, I certify that I verily believe the same to be

true.

DATED: _________________________

SANDRA JACKSON

2287854_1 9

You might also like