Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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. )
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
Supplement to Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack
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
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
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.
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
72. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.
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
73. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.
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
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
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.
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
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
78. Sandra incorporates her Reply to Paragraph 71 as if set forth verbatim herein.
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
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.
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
B. For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem equitable and just.
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
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. )
Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter
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