United States: Daimler AG v. Bauman: The Supreme Court Clarifies General (Or "All-Purpose") Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporations, Both Foreign And Domestic

Last Updated: January 20 2014
Article by David N. Cinotti and Nicholas Buell

On January 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Daimler AG v. Bauman, which considered whether a corporation domiciled abroad can be subject to general personal jurisdiction in a U.S. court based on the activities of the foreign corporation's U.S. subsidiary. A defendant over which a court has general jurisdiction can be subject to suit in that court on any claim, even those claims that are unrelated to the defendant's activities in the forum state.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurring in the judgment), held that it violates due process for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a corporation that is not "at home" in the forum state. A corporation, the Court explained, is not "at home" all over the country or the world. It is "at home"—and therefore subject to general jurisdiction—where it is incorporated, where it has its principal place of business, and perhaps in other limited circumstances left open by the opinion.

The decision has important implications for foreign and domestic corporations alike. Although the decision does not answer some questions, it severely restricts plaintiffs from asserting that a corporation not incorporated, or with its principal place of business, in the forum state can be sued there on claims unrelated to that company's activities in the forum state.

Issue Before the Court

In Daimler AG, a group of Argentine residents sued DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft ("Daimler") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that Daimler's Argentinian subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz Argentina, collaborated with government security forces during Argentina's "Dirty War" to commit human-rights violations against employees of Mercedes-Benz Argentina. The plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS") and the Torture Victim Protection Act ("TVPA").

The plaintiffs argued that the court had general personal jurisdiction over Daimler based on the contacts with California of another Daimler subsidiary—Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA"), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Daimler did not challenge the plaintiffs' assertion that courts in California would have general personal jurisdiction over MBUSA. The district court granted Daimler's motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that MBUSA was Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes, that MBUSA's California contacts—which were sufficient to subject MBUSA to general jurisdiction in California—were imputed to Daimler, and that therefore courts in California also had general jurisdiction over Daimler. To determine whether MBUSA was Daimler's agent for purposes of personal jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the subsidiary performed services so important to the foreign parent that the parent would do them itself if the subsidiary did not exist.

The Supreme Court's Decision

The Court noted that it had never decided "whether a foreign corporation may be subjected to a court's general jurisdiction based on the contacts of its in-state subsidiary." And, although the Court has approved agency as a means to establish specific jurisdiction (that is, personal jurisdiction in a suit relating to the defendant's activities in, or contacts with, the state), it has never approved agency as a theory to establish general jurisdiction.

The Ninth Circuit's Agency Standard

The Court rejected as too broad the Ninth Circuit's view of agency for jurisdictional purposes, explaining that the Ninth Circuit's standard "appears to subject foreign corporations to general jurisdiction whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate." The Court declined, however, to decide what an appropriate test for agency would be. Instead, it held that "[e]ven if we were to assume that MBUSA is at home in California, and further to assume MBUSA's contacts are imputable to Daimler, there still would be no basis to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in California, for Daimler's slim contacts with the State hardly render it at home there."

Definition of "At Home"

Citing the Court's 2011 decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, the Court explained that "only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose [or general] jurisdiction there." For a corporation, place of incorporation and principal place of business are the paradigmatic affiliations. Other contacts or activities with the forum state might be sufficient, but they would need to be so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation "essentially at home" in the forum state. In an important footnote, the Court noted that "[g]eneral jurisdiction...calls for an appraisal of a corporation's activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide. A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed to be at home in all of them."

Daimler was not incorporated in California and did not have its principal place of business there; its only imputed contacts to California were MBUSA's sales. The Court held that Daimler was not subject to general jurisdiction in every state in which MBUSA had substantial sales.

International Comity

Notably, the Court criticized the Ninth Circuit's ruling because it "paid little heed to the risks to international comity its expansive view of general jurisdiction posed." The Court noted that, under two of its recent decisions, the plaintiffs' claims under the ATS and TVPA were likely barred by the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes, which undermined the Ninth Circuit's reasoning that the United States had a strong interest in the case. In addition, the Court noted that other nations, such as the members of the European Union, take a more limited view of personal jurisdiction over corporations.

The Court therefore held that "[c]onsiderations of international rapport...reinforce [the] determination that subjecting Daimler to the general jurisdiction of courts in California would not accord with the 'fair play and substantial justice' due process demands."

Impact of the Decision

Non-U.S. companies are rightly cautious about the jurisdictional reach of U.S. courts (and the jury trials, punitive damages, and extensive pre-trial discovery that are part of the U.S. system), and often seek to avoid direct contacts with the United States to limit exposure to suits here. And other countries often express concerns—rooted in sovereignty and comity—about U.S. adjudication of disputes with little or no connection to the United States. The Court's Daimler decision shows sensitivity to both foreign companies' need for predictability and foreign sovereigns' complaints about expansive U.S. jurisdiction.

Under the Daimler decision, even if a U.S. subsidiary's contacts with a U.S. jurisdiction are extensive enough to render the subsidiary "at home" in the forum state, those contacts alone are insufficient to subject its foreign parent company to general jurisdiction in that forum. In order for the court to have general jurisdiction over the parent company, the parent must have its own independent affiliations with the forum state extensive enough to render it "at home" there. And a corporation that is incorporated and has its principal place of business elsewhere will not be subject to general jurisdiction in a state, absent some comparable hallmarks of being "at home" in that state. In other words, corporations—whether foreign or domestic—are not "at home" everywhere they do significant business.

In addition, the international context of disputes—including whether other sovereign nations with an interest in the dispute would object to U.S. jurisdiction—is relevant to determining the reach of U.S. personal jurisdiction.

But the decision does leave some open questions, including:

  • Beyond incorporation and principal place of business in the forum state, what other contacts or activities (if any) will render a corporation at home and therefore subject to general jurisdiction?
  • Is agency foreclosed in all cases as a means to establish general jurisdiction?
  • Can a foreign corporation be subject to general jurisdiction in a state where its subsidiary is "at home" based on the theory that the subsidiary is the parent's alter ego?
  • Is the international context of a dispute relevant to evaluating specific jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, or only to general jurisdiction?

These questions will likely need to be addressed in future cases.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions