United States: United States Supreme Court Holds That Non-U.S. Corporations Are Subject To General Personal Jurisdiction In U.S. States Only In States Where They Are "At Home"

In Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 644 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014) (Ginsburg, J.), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a court may not exercise general personal jurisdiction over a non-U.S. corporation unless that corporation's contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation "at home" there.  The Supreme Court also held that a non-U.S. corporation will not be subject to a state's general jurisdiction simply because the corporation's subsidiary is "at home" in the forum state and the subsidiary's contacts with the state are imputed to the corporation.  Daimler limits the situations under which a large, multinational corporation will be subject to general personal jurisdiction.  As a result, plaintiffs may have more difficulty establishing jurisdiction over an foreign corporation when the claims sued upon do not arise in or relate to the forum state.

Defendant DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft ("Daimler") is a German public stock company that manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany.  Plaintiffs were twenty-one residents and citizens of Argentina and one resident of Argentina who was also citizen of Chile.  They alleged that MB Argentina, a wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler's predecessor in interest, collaborated with Argentinian state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture and kill plaintiffs and their relatives during the military dictatorship in place from 1976 through 1983.  Plaintiffs sued Daimler in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 106 Stat. 73 (1992), as well as claims for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the laws of Argentina and California.  Plaintiffs made no allegations that MB Argentina's purported collaboration with Argentinian authorities took place in California or in the United States.

Daimler moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs argued that jurisdiction over Daimler was proper because Daimler's indirect subsidiary, MBUSA, has significant contacts with California.  MBUSA, which is a Delaware limited liability company that operates in New Jersey, is Daimler's exclusive importer and distributer of cars in the United States.  Plaintiffs argued that MBUSA's contacts should be imputed to Daimler based upon an agency theory and that those contacts were sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over Daimler in California.

The district court granted Daimler's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent, and therefore, its contacts with California could not be imputed to Daimler.  On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes.  Bauman v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011).  The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Daimler is amenable to suit in California courts for claims involving only foreign plaintiffs and conduct occurring entirely abroad.

First, the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's holding that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes.  The Ninth Circuit's agency finding rested primarily upon the observation that MBUSA's services were "important" to Daimler.  The Ninth Circuit held MBUSA's services were "important" because Daimler would perform those services itself if MBUSA did not exist.  The Supreme Court held this agency analysis unfairly tipped the scales in favor of finding an agency relationship.  Under this analysis, the services of a subsidiary would almost always be "important."  However, the Court only held that the Ninth Circuit's agency analysis was erroneous, and it did not pass judgment on the invocation of an agency theory in the context of general jurisdiction.

Second, the Supreme Court addressed whether Daimler was subject to general personal jurisdiction when assuming that MBUSA's contacts with California could be imputed to Daimler.  The Supreme Court explained that general personal jurisdiction over a corporation is appropriate when the corporation is deemed "at home" in a forum.  Paradigm bases for general jurisdiction are a corporation's principal place of business or place of incorporation.  Additionally, a corporation may be amenable to general jurisdiction if the corporation's connections with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially "at home" in the state.

The Supreme Court held that, even assuming MBUSA is "at home" in California and that MBUSA's contacts were imputable to Daimler, Daimler still was not subject to California's general jurisdiction because Daimler lacked sufficient contacts with the state.  For Daimler to be subject to general jurisdiction in California,  Daimler had to have such continuous and systematic contacts as to render it essentially "at home" there.  In its analysis, the Supreme Court compared Daimler's California contacts to its business operations worldwide.  In light of the magnitude of Daimler's worldwide business activities,  Daimler's activities in California, even after imputing MBUSA's business activities to it, were too few to render Daimler "at home" there.  Furthermore, Daimler was not "at home" in California under the paradigm bases because it was not incorporated in California and it did not have its principal place of business in California.  Thus, Daimler was not subject to California's general jurisdiction.

Lastly, the Supreme Court commented on how an expansive view of general jurisdiction affects international relations.  According to the Solicitor General, foreign governments' objections to an expansive view of general jurisdiction have impeded negotiations of international agreements on the reciprocal recognition of the enforcement of judgments.  The Supreme Court held that embracing a more limited view of general jurisdiction also supported and helped protect international agreements.

Daimler limits the circumstances in which general jurisdiction will be applied to large, multinational corporations.  Unless a defendant corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business in a forum state, a court will rarely have general jurisdiction over it.  This decision may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue non-U.S. corporations for their activities that take place entirely outside of the United States.

In Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 644 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014) (Ginsburg, J.), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a court may not exercise general personal jurisdiction over a non-U.S. corporation unless that corporation's contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation "at home" there.  The Supreme Court also held that a non-U.S. corporation will not be subject to a state's general jurisdiction simply because the corporation's subsidiary is "at home" in the forum state and the subsidiary's contacts with the state are imputed to the corporation.  Daimler limits the situations under which a large, multinational corporation will be subject to general personal jurisdiction.  As a result, plaintiffs may have more difficulty establishing jurisdiction over an foreign corporation when the claims sued upon do not arise in or relate to the forum state.

Defendant DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft ("Daimler") is a German public stock company that manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany.  Plaintiffs were twenty-one residents and citizens of Argentina and one resident of Argentina who was also citizen of Chile.  They alleged that MB Argentina, a wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler's predecessor in interest, collaborated with Argentinian state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture and kill plaintiffs and their relatives during the military dictatorship in place from 1976 through 1983.  Plaintiffs sued Daimler in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 106 Stat. 73 (1992), as well as claims for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the laws of Argentina and California.  Plaintiffs made no allegations that MB Argentina's purported collaboration with Argentinian authorities took place in California or in the United States.

Daimler moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs argued that jurisdiction over Daimler was proper because Daimler's indirect subsidiary, MBUSA, has significant contacts with California.  MBUSA, which is a Delaware limited liability company that operates in New Jersey, is Daimler's exclusive importer and distributer of cars in the United States.  Plaintiffs argued that MBUSA's contacts should be imputed to Daimler based upon an agency theory and that those contacts were sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over Daimler in California.

The district court granted Daimler's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent, and therefore, its contacts with California could not be imputed to Daimler.  On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes.  Bauman v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011).  The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Daimler is amenable to suit in California courts for claims involving only foreign plaintiffs and conduct occurring entirely abroad.

First, the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's holding that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes.  The Ninth Circuit's agency finding rested primarily upon the observation that MBUSA's services were "important" to Daimler.  The Ninth Circuit held MBUSA's services were "important" because Daimler would perform those services itself if MBUSA did not exist.  The Supreme Court held this agency analysis unfairly tipped the scales in favor of finding an agency relationship.  Under this analysis, the services of a subsidiary would almost always be "important."  However, the Court only held that the Ninth Circuit's agency analysis was erroneous, and it did not pass judgment on the invocation of an agency theory in the context of general jurisdiction.

Second, the Supreme Court addressed whether Daimler was subject to general personal jurisdiction when assuming that MBUSA's contacts with California could be imputed to Daimler.  The Supreme Court explained that general personal jurisdiction over a corporation is appropriate when the corporation is deemed "at home" in a forum.  Paradigm bases for general jurisdiction are a corporation's principal place of business or place of incorporation.  Additionally, a corporation may be amenable to general jurisdiction if the corporation's connections with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially "at home" in the state.

The Supreme Court held that, even assuming MBUSA is "at home" in California and that MBUSA's contacts were imputable to Daimler, Daimler still was not subject to California's general jurisdiction because Daimler lacked sufficient contacts with the state.  For Daimler to be subject to general jurisdiction in California,  Daimler had to have such continuous and systematic contacts as to render it essentially "at home" there.  In its analysis, the Supreme Court compared Daimler's California contacts to its business operations worldwide.  In light of the magnitude of Daimler's worldwide business activities,  Daimler's activities in California, even after imputing MBUSA's business activities to it, were too few to render Daimler "at home" there.  Furthermore, Daimler was not "at home" in California under the paradigm bases because it was not incorporated in California and it did not have its principal place of business in California.  Thus, Daimler was not subject to California's general jurisdiction.

Lastly, the Supreme Court commented on how an expansive view of general jurisdiction affects international relations.  According to the Solicitor General, foreign governments' objections to an expansive view of general jurisdiction have impeded negotiations of international agreements on the reciprocal recognition of the enforcement of judgments.  The Supreme Court held that embracing a more limited view of general jurisdiction also supported and helped protect international agreements.

Daimler limits the circumstances in which general jurisdiction will be applied to large, multinational corporations.  Unless a defendant corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business in a forum state, a court will rarely have general jurisdiction over it.  This decision may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue non-U.S. corporations for their activities that take place entirely outside of the United States.

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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
16 Nov 2018, Other, Los Angeles, United States

Sheppard Mullin partner Jonathan Aronie will speak on “Careers in White Collar Practice and Corporate Compliance” panel at Duke Law.

3 Dec 2018, Other, Los Angeles, United States

National Contract Management Association’s Government Contract Management Symposium

20 Feb 2019, Seminar, Orange, United States

The annual seminar addressing changes and developments in state and federal wage and hour laws is a unique one-day program and hundreds of California employers, personnel managers, controllers, attorneys, payroll managers, and supervisors attend each year.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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