Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure — personal jurisdiction — Alien Tort Statute

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 14, 2014//

Civil Procedure — personal jurisdiction — Alien Tort Statute

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 14, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Civil Procedure — personal jurisdiction — Alien Tort Statute

A corporation may not be sued based on the actions of another subsidiary of its parent corporation in Argentina.

Neither Daimler nor MBUSA is incorporated in California, nor does either entity have its principal place of business there. If Daimler’s California activities sufficed to allow adjudication of this Argentina-rooted case in California, the same global reach would presumably be available in every other State in which MBUSA’s sales are sizable. No decision of this Court sanctions a view of general jurisdiction so grasping. The Ninth Circuit, therefore, had no warrant to conclude that Daimler, even with MBUSA’s contacts attributed to it, was at home in California, and hence subject to suit there on claims by foreign plaintiffs having nothing to do with anything that occurred or had its principal impact in California.

644 F. 3d 909, reversed.

11-965 Daimler AG v. Bauman

Ginsburg, J.; Sotomayor, J., concurring

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests