Brief át 20 n. 10. Defendants, however, cite no casé where a court has refused to apply Royal Printing on those grounds, and this Court is not inclined to become the first to do so. Though there is some intuitive appeal to refusing to apply the exception in cases where enforcement by other parties is ongoing or likely, the better course is to apply the Royal Printing exception to any plaintiff who meets the formal criteria. To do otherwise is to engage in the very case-by-case recalibration of Illinois Brick that the cases so frequently disapprove. Having been warned against the ad hoc creation or expansion of exceptions, this Court sees no reason why ad hoc disregard or narrowing of the established exceptions is any more justifiable. Cf. UtiliCorp, 497 U.S. at 216-217, 110 S.Ct. 2807 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Defendants’ interpretation of Royal
holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois recognizing that rationales behind illinois brick might not be apply in all cases but standing by illinois brick regardless holding that illinois brick did not preempt state laws that permit suits by plaintiffs with passedon injuries holding that geographic limitation in illinois franchise law prevents its application to dispute with outofstate franchisor notwithstanding express illinois choiceoflaw clause holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law