Daimler AG v. Bauman

Last updated

Daimler AG v. Bauman
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 15, 2013
Decided January 14, 2014
Full case nameDaimlerChrysler AG, Petitioner v. Barbara Bauman, et al.
Docket no. 11-965
Citations571 U.S. 117 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 746; 187 L. Ed. 2d 624; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 644; 82 U.S.L.W. 4043
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorPlaintiffs' claims dismissed, Northern District of California; affirmed, 579 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2009); reversed on rehearing, 644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011); rehearing en banc denied, 676 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011).
Holding
Daimler cannot be sued in California for injuries allegedly caused by conduct of its Argentinian subsidiary when that conduct took place entirely outside of the United States.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan
ConcurrenceSotomayor (in judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. [1] The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim. [2]

Contents

Background

Daimler Aktiengesellschaft is an automotive manufacturer based in Stuttgart, Germany, that owns Mercedes-Benz and its subsidiaries around the world, including in the United States and Argentina. During the Dirty War in Argentina, a labor dispute developed at the Mercedes-Benz plant in González Catán. Mercedes-Benz reported the labor leaders as "subversives" to the right-wing military junta, had junta forces stationed within the factory, and allowed the junta to conduct raids on workers. [3] During the dispute, twenty-two labor leaders were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. Afterwards, the police chief responsible for the "disappearances" was hired as Mercedes-Benz Argentina's chief of security and the company provided his legal defense against human rights abuse accusations. [4]

Twenty years later, Mercedes-Benz's role in Argentina's Dirty War came to the attention of the German media. DaimlerChrysler AG responded to the accusations against its subsidiary by hiring Professor Christian Tomuschat to conduct an investigation. [5] His exculpatory findings were criticized by Amnesty International. [6]

In 2004, the survivors sued DaimlerChrysler AG in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that its subsidiary's activities during Argentina's Dirty War gave rise to claims under the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act, and California state tort law. [7] District Judge Ronald M. Whyte dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that, under the law of agency, DaimlerChrysler's wholly owned subsidiary Mercedes-Benz USA is not an agent of its owner, and that it would be unreasonable to exercise jurisdiction directly over DaimlerChrysler. [7] Plaintiffs appealed.

Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy Wright Nelson, joined by Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, affirmed, with Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissenting. [8] Plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing and, nine months later, the court granted the rehearing, vacated its earlier opinion and scheduled the case for reargument. [9]

However, the court then cancelled the reargument and instead released a new opinion, authored by Judge Reinhardt, that came to the opposite of its earlier conclusion. [4] The three-judge panel unanimously reversed the district court, finding that Mercedes-Benz USA was indeed an agent of DaimlerChrysler and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over DaimlerChrysler was reasonable "under the circumstances of this case". The Ninth Circuit then denied DaimlerChrysler's petition for a rehearing en banc , with Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain authoring a dissent joined by seven other judges. [10]

DaimlerChrysler (by then renamed Daimler AG) petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court and the petition was granted. The case was argued on October 15, 2013, with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler appearing as a friend in support of Daimler. [11]

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for the Court, "Exercises of personal jurisdiction so exorbitant, we hold, are barred by due process constraints." [12] Justice Ginsburg, in an opinion joined by seven other justices, begins by tracing the jurisprudential history of in personam jurisdiction, beginning with the rigid territorial limits of Pennoyer v. Neff (1878). The Court saw International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) as later recognizing the distinction between specific jurisdiction, which includes only the specific conduct that connects the defendant to the territory, and general jurisdiction, which includes all the defendant's acts anywhere, and Ginsburg ends the history with her recent admonition to exercise general jurisdiction only when the defendant is “essentially at home” in the forum in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011).

The Court finds that "in no event" can Reinhardt's agency theory be sustained. Noting that even the plaintiffs' brief had distanced itself from Reinhardt's logic, the Court largely adopts the criticisms of the Ninth Circuit judges dissenting from the denial of an en banc rehearing. The Court even goes so far as to emphasize that Reinhardt's formulation "stacks the deck" and would always have the same result of exercising jurisdiction.

The Court then goes further, writing, "Even if we were to assume that MBUSA is at home in California, and further to assume MBUSA's contacts are imputable to Daimler, there would still be no basis to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in California." [13] Daimler could not be subject to general jurisdiction in California because its agent's activity in California would merely establish specific jurisdiction in California. Justice Ginsburg rejects Justice Sotomayor's assertion that the Court had chosen to decide an issue not argued below, writing, "the question fairly encompasses an inquiry" into the agency relationship. [14] The Court then implies that a corporation can only be "at home" and subject to general jurisdiction where it is incorporated or where it has its principal place of business.

Lastly, the Court notes that recent cases have rendered federal claims for human rights violations "infirm". [15] Furthermore, the Court gives weight to the Solicitor General's suggestion that "international rapport" may be damaged when U.S. courts hear foreign corporations' foreign misdeeds.

Concurrence in the judgment

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in judgment only. Sotomayor agreed that Reinhardt's opinion is clearly in error, and suggests that personal jurisdiction is simply unreasonable because Germany has a far greater interest in resolving the dispute. Sotomayor considered the Court's opinion wrong in “both process and substance.” Procedurally, Sotomayor argued that Ginsburg strayed beyond the question briefed by assuming Mercedes Benz USA's agency relationship in the absence of an adequate factual record below. Substantively, Sotomayor argued that effectively limiting general jurisdiction to the principal place of business inherently favors larger businesses, making multinational corporations “too big for general jurisdiction”.

This, in her view, created manifold injustices. It is unjust by using the Constitution to limit the states' sovereign prerogative over the exercise of their courts’ jurisdiction. It is unjust to small businesses in that they will be subject to instate general jurisdiction while their multinational competitors will not. It is unjust to individuals because when visiting a state a natural person can be served with process and become subject to general jurisdiction while a fictional person cannot, even if that fictional person is a multinational corporation who has permanent employees in the state. Finally, Sotomayor views the Court's singular approach unjust because the result of limiting general jurisdiction is to shut the courthouse door, inevitably benefiting wrongdoers at the cost of those they have wronged.

Reaction

During an interview Linda Greenhouse asked Justice Sotomayor about her concurrence in the judgment, noting that "you did not pull your punches", to which the justice replied "bad facts make bad law" and that she felt she needed to bring attention to "the dangers of the path the Court is on." [16]

Scholars concluded that the Court's opinion "constitutes a radical departure from settled law," [17] and that "the Court has severely constrained the reach of general jurisdiction in a way that would have been surprising just four years ago." [18] At a symposium on the case, [19] academics pronounced the "end of an era," [20] encouraged a return to the International Shoe standard, [21] or identified the need for new legislation. [22]

In its 2017 decisions in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its adherence to the jurisdictional limitations recognized in Daimler.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mercedes-Benz Group</span> German multinational automotive company

The Mercedes-Benz Group AG is a German multinational automotive corporation headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. It is one of the world's leading car manufacturers. Daimler-Benz was formed with the merger of Benz & Cie. and Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft in 1926. The company was renamed DaimlerChrysler upon the acquisition of American automobile manufacturer Chrysler Corporation in 1998, and was again renamed Daimler AG upon divestment of Chrysler in 2007. In 2021, Daimler AG was the second-largest German automaker and the sixth-largest worldwide by production. In February 2022, Daimler was renamed Mercedes-Benz Group as part of a transaction that spun-off its commercial vehicle segment as an independent company, Daimler Truck.

Long-arm jurisdiction is the ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants, whether on a statutory basis or through a court's inherent jurisdiction. This jurisdiction permits a court to hear a case against a defendant and enter a binding judgment against a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction concerned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane Wood</span> American judge

Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as the director of the American Law Institute, a senior circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Reinhardt</span> American judge

Stephen Roy Reinhardt was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with chambers in Los Angeles, California. He was the last federal appeals court judge in active service to have been appointed to his position by President Jimmy Carter.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.

Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion regarding foreign sovereign immunity. After defaulting on its debt and losing a federal collection action, Argentina claimed that its foreign assets were immune from discovery. The Court found that no such immunity existed.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ; 576 U.S. 351 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case arose out of a dispute involving the National Raisin Reserve, when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market. In Horne I the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause. In Horne II the Court held that the National Raisin Reserve was an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause.

Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. It is part of a group of six cases decided since 2011 that have greatly changed the application of personal jurisdiction.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review a denial of class certification after plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court of the United States case addressing overtime pay. Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Montana courts lacked personal jurisdiction over a railroad that was not incorporated in Montana and did not have its principal place of business in Montana, even though the railroad had more than 2,000 miles of track and 2,000 employees within Montana. It was the first Supreme Court case argued before a Court that included newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.

American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the separation of church and state related to maintaining the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial shaped after a Latin cross, on government-owned land, though initially built in 1925 with private funds on private lands. The case was a consolidation of two petitions to the court, that of The American Legion who built the cross, and of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission who own the land and maintain the memorial. Both petitions challenged the Fourth Circuit's ruling that, regardless of the secular purpose the cross was built for in honoring the deceased soldiers, the cross emboldened a religious symbol and had ordered it altered or razed. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in a 7–2 decision, determining that since the Cross had stood for decades without controversy, it did not violate the Establishment Clause and could remain standing.

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014).
  2. ↑ "With Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler, High Court May Have Put Brakes On Forum Shopping - Forbes". Forbes .
  3. ↑ Brief for Respondents, http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/11-965-bs.pdf
  4. 1 2 Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644F.3d909 , 912( 9th Cir. 2011).
  5. ↑ Leidel, Steffen (December 9, 2003). "Report Clears DaimlerChrysler of Human Rights Violations". Deutsche Welle . Retrieved February 23, 2015.
  6. ↑ "Weiße Weste?". Amnesty International Journal. No. February 2004. Archived from the original on February 23, 2015. Retrieved February 23, 2015.
  7. 1 2 The Supreme Court Term — Leading Cases, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 311 (2014).
  8. ↑ Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 579F.3d1088 ( 9th Cir. 2009).
  9. ↑ Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 07-15386 (9th Cir. May 6, 2010).
  10. ↑ Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 676F.3d774 ( 9th Cir. 2011).
  11. ↑ "Cases". oyez.org. Retrieved April 21, 2023.
  12. ↑ Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 at 751 (2014).
  13. ↑ Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760.
  14. ↑ Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760 n.16.
  15. ↑ Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 763 citing Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum , 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 132 S.Ct. 1702 (2012).
  16. ↑ Justice Sonia Sotomayor & Linda Greenhouse, "A Conversation with Justice Sotomayor", 123 Yale L.J. F. 375 (2014).
  17. ↑ Judy M. Cornett & Michael H. Hoffheimer, Good-Bye Significant Contacts: General Personal Jurisdiction after Daimler AG v. Bauman, 76 Ohio St. L.J. 101 (2015).
  18. ↑ Alan M. Trammell, A Tale of Two Jurisdictions, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 5 (2015).
  19. ↑ Philip Thoennes, Personal Jurisdiction Symposium: An Introduction, 19 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 593 (2015).
  20. ↑ Linda J. Silberman, The End of Another Era: Reflections on Daimler and Its Implications for Judicial Jurisdiction in the United States, 19 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 675 (2015).
  21. ↑ Cassandra Burke Robertson and Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes, Shifting Equilibrium: Personal Jurisdiction, Transnational Litigation, and the Problem of Nonparties, 19 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 643 (2015).
  22. ↑ John T. Parry, Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction after Bauman and Walden, 19 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 607 (2015).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.