Daimler AG v Bauman: court again rejects a ‘sprawling view of general jurisdiction’
By Colin T Kemp, Kevin M Fong, Sam Stubbs and Jhalé Ali
On 14 January 2014, the US Supreme Court in Daimler AG v Bauman held that Argentinian plaintiffs could not sue a German car manufacturer in California for human rights violations allegedly committed in Argentina. The court explained that US courts may only exercise general jurisdiction over foreign corporations when the corporation’s contacts with the state in which the suit is brought are so extensive that the corporation is ‘essentially at home’ in the state.
Before diving into Daimler AG v Bauman, a brief overview of personal jurisdiction may help. Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to make binding decisions concerning each party in a lawsuit. This authority is derived from the parties’ contacts with the state in which the suit is brought — the forum state.
For a case to proceed, the court must have at least one of two types of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The first is ‘general’ jurisdiction, which permits a court to hear any claim against a defendant with extensive contacts with the forum state, regardless of the subject matter of the lawsuit. In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations SA v Brown, the Supreme Court explained that these contacts must be ‘so continuous and systematic as to render [the defendant] essentially at home in the forum state’…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
On 10 September 2014, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1522, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014.
Aurora Energy decision deems discharges prohibited, leaves open question of permit shield applicability
On 3 September 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Alaska Community Action on Toxics v Aurora Energy Services LLC.