Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11–965.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJustice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Citation187 L.Ed.2d 624,134 S.Ct. 746,571 U.S. 117
Parties DAIMLER AG, Petitioner v. Barbara BAUMAN et al.
Docket NumberNo. 11–965.
Decision Date14 January 2014

571 U.S. 117
134 S.Ct.
746
187 L.Ed.2d 624

DAIMLER AG, Petitioner
v.
Barbara BAUMAN et al.

No. 11–965.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Oct. 15, 2013.
Decided Jan. 14, 2014.


Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, DC, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner.

Kevin Russell, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Justs N. Karlsons, Matthew J. Kemner, David M. Rice, Troy M. Yoshino, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP, San Francisco, Theodore B. Olson, Daniel W. Nelson, Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., Counsel of Record, Amir C. Tayrani, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Counsel for Petitioner.

Kevin K. Russell, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Counsel of Record, Washington, DC, Pamela S. Karlan, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford Law School, Supreme Court, Litigation Clinic, Stanford, Terrence P. Collingsworth, Christian Levesque, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.

571 U.S. 120

This case concerns the authority of a court in the United States to entertain a claim brought by foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant based on events occurring entirely outside the United States. The litigation commenced in 2004, when twenty-two Argentinian residents1 filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District

571 U.S. 121

of California against DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft

134 S.Ct. 751

(Daimler),2 a German public stock company, headquartered in Stuttgart, that manufactures Mercedes–Benz vehicles in Germany. The complaint alleged that during Argentina's 1976–1983 "Dirty War," Daimler's Argentinian subsidiary, Mercedes–Benz Argentina (MB Argentina) collaborated with state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain MB Argentina workers, among them, plaintiffs or persons closely related to plaintiffs. Damages for the alleged human-rights violations were sought from Daimler under the laws of the United States, California, and Argentina. Jurisdiction over the lawsuit was predicated on the California contacts of Mercedes–Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), a subsidiary of Daimler incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. MBUSA distributes Daimler-manufactured vehicles to independent dealerships throughout the United States, including California.

The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes the District Court from exercising jurisdiction over Daimler in this case, given the absence of any California connection to the atrocities, perpetrators, or victims described in the complaint. Plaintiffs invoked the court's general or all-purpose jurisdiction. California, they urge, is a place where Daimler may be sued on any and all claims against it, wherever in the world the claims may arise. For example, as plaintiffs' counsel affirmed, under the proffered jurisdictional theory, if a Daimler-manufactured vehicle overturned in Poland, injuring a Polish driver and passenger, the injured parties could maintain a design defect suit in California. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28–29. Exercises of personal jurisdiction so exorbitant,

571 U.S. 122

we hold, are barred by due process constraints on the assertion of adjudicatory authority.

In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011), we addressed the distinction between general or all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or conduct-linked jurisdiction. As to the former, we held that a court may assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation "to hear any and all claims against [it]" only when the corporation's affiliations with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive "as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." Id., at ––––, 131 S.Ct., at 2851. Instructed by Goodyear , we conclude Daimler is not "at home" in California, and cannot be sued there for injuries plaintiffs attribute to MB Argentina's conduct in Argentina.

I

In 2004, plaintiffs (respondents here) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that MB Argentina collaborated with Argentinian state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill plaintiffs and their relatives during the military dictatorship in place there from 1976 through 1983, a period known as Argentina's "Dirty War." Based on those allegations, plaintiffs asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U.S.C. § 1350, as well as claims for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the laws of California and Argentina. The incidents recounted in the

134 S.Ct. 752

complaint center on MB Argentina's plant in Gonzalez Catan, Argentina; no part of MB Argentina's alleged collaboration with Argentinian authorities took place in California or anywhere else in the United States.

Plaintiffs' operative complaint names only one corporate defendant: Daimler, the petitioner here. Plaintiffs seek to hold Daimler vicariously liable for MB Argentina's alleged

571 U.S. 123

malfeasance. Daimler is a German Aktiengesellschaft (public stock company) that manufactures Mercedes–Benz vehicles primarily in Germany and has its headquarters in Stuttgart. At times relevant to this case, MB Argentina was a subsidiary wholly owned by Daimler's predecessor in interest.

Daimler moved to dismiss the action for want of personal jurisdiction. Opposing the motion, plaintiffs submitted declarations and exhibits purporting to demonstrate the presence of Daimler itself in California. Alternatively, plaintiffs maintained that jurisdiction over Daimler could be founded on the California contacts of MBUSA, a distinct corporate entity that, according to plaintiffs, should be treated as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes.

MBUSA, an indirect subsidiary of Daimler, is a Delaware limited liability corporation.3 MBUSA serves as Daimler's exclusive importer and distributor in the United States, purchasing Mercedes–Benz automobiles from Daimler in Germany, then importing those vehicles, and ultimately distributing them to independent dealerships located throughout the Nation. Although MBUSA's principal place of business is in New Jersey, MBUSA has multiple California-based facilities, including a regional office in Costa Mesa, a Vehicle Preparation Center in Carson, and a Classic Center in Irvine. According to the record developed below, MBUSA is the largest supplier of luxury vehicles to the California market. In particular, over 10% of all sales of new vehicles in the United States take place in California, and MBUSA's California sales account for 2.4% of Daimler's worldwide sales.

The relationship between Daimler and MBUSA is delineated in a General Distributor Agreement, which sets forth requirements for MBUSA's distribution of Mercedes–Benz vehicles in the United States. That agreement established MBUSA as an "independent contracto[r]" that "buy[s] and

571 U.S. 124

sell[s] [vehicles] ... as an independent business for [its] own account." App. 179a. The agreement "does not make [MBUSA] ... a general or special agent, partner, joint venturer or employee of DAIMLERCHRYSLER or any DaimlerChrysler Group Company"; MBUSA "ha[s] no authority to make binding obligations for or act on behalf of DAIMLERCHRYSLER or any DaimlerChrysler Group Company." Ibid.

After allowing jurisdictional discovery on plaintiffs' agency allegations, the District Court granted Daimler's motion to dismiss. Daimler's own affiliations with California, the court first determined, were insufficient to support the exercise of all-purpose jurisdiction over the corporation. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG, No. C–04–00194 RMW (N.D.Cal., Nov. 22, 2005), App. to Pet. for Cert. 111a–112a, 2005 WL 3157472, *9–*10. Next, the court declined to attribute MBUSA's California contacts to Daimler on an agency theory, concluding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent. Id., at 117a, 133a, 2005 WL 3157472, *12, *19;

134 S.Ct. 753

Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG, No. C–04–00194 RMW (N.D.Cal., Feb. 12, 2007), App. to Pet. for Cert. 83a–85a, 2007 WL 486389, *2.

The Ninth Circuit at first affirmed the District Court's judgment. Addressing solely the question of agency, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had not shown the existence of an agency relationship of the kind that might warrant attribution of MBUSA's contacts to Daimler. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 579 F.3d 1088, 1096–1097 (2009). Judge Reinhardt dissented. In his view, the agency test was satisfied and considerations of "reasonableness" did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction. Id., at 1098–1106. Granting plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, the panel withdrew its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4417 practice notes
  • Global v. Prithvi Info. Sols., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01290-WSS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 10, 2020
    ...and 2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable under the circumstances (the reasonableness prong). Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 144 (2014). There are a few exceptions to this general rule. Parties may consent to a forum. Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S......
  • Ultimate Outdoor Movies, LLC v. Funflicks, LLC, Civil Case No.: SAG-18-2315
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • May 8, 2019
    ...the paradigm bases for general jurisdiction are "the place of incorporation and principal place of business." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014). The Daimler court clarified that while those paradigms are not necessarily the only bases for general jurisdiction, it would be "unac......
  • Ingram Barge Co. v. Bunge N. Am., Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01030
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • April 17, 2020
    ..."exceptional" cases. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1552, 198 L.Ed.2d 36 (2017) (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117, 136, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014) ). It is undisputed that Bunge is neither incorporated in nor headquartered in Tennessee, and I......
  • Annuity v. Coastal Envtl. Grp., 18 Civ. 5773 (AMD) (ST)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 5, 2019
    ...(citing Helicopteros Nacionales dePage 10 Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16 & nn. 8-9 (1984))); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014) (holding that a corporation has minimum contacts to support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction "when [its] affiliations with t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4361 cases
  • Global v. Prithvi Info. Sols., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01290-WSS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 10, 2020
    ...and 2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable under the circumstances (the reasonableness prong). Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 144 (2014). There are a few exceptions to this general rule. Parties may consent to a forum. Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S......
  • Ultimate Outdoor Movies, LLC v. Funflicks, LLC, Civil Case No.: SAG-18-2315
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • May 8, 2019
    ...the paradigm bases for general jurisdiction are "the place of incorporation and principal place of business." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014). The Daimler court clarified that while those paradigms are not necessarily the only bases for general jurisdiction, it would be "unac......
  • Ingram Barge Co. v. Bunge N. Am., Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01030
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • April 17, 2020
    ..."exceptional" cases. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1552, 198 L.Ed.2d 36 (2017) (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117, 136, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014) ). It is undisputed that Bunge is neither incorporated in nor headquartered in Tennessee, and I......
  • Annuity v. Coastal Envtl. Grp., 18 Civ. 5773 (AMD) (ST)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 5, 2019
    ...(citing Helicopteros Nacionales dePage 10 Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16 & nn. 8-9 (1984))); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014) (holding that a corporation has minimum contacts to support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction "when [its] affiliations with t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 firm's commentaries
6 books & journal articles
  • SUBSTITUTED SERVICE AND THE HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 Nbr. 5, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...Civ. 8318, 1998 WL 433780, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1998)). (108.) Cosper, 346 P.2d at 413 (quoting Eclipse Fuel, 307 P.2d at 745). (109.) 571 U.S. 117, 135 (2014) (quoting 2A C. J. S., Agency [section] 43 (2013)). (110.) Id. at 135 n. 13. (111.) In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Li......
  • DEFERRING TO FOREIGN COURTS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 Nbr. 8, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...salvation to emerge from the last round of negotiations in the Hague was arguably Justice Ginsburg's opinion in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137-38 (2014), in which the Court laid to rest the U.S. practice of "doing business" (20) See, e.g., Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S.......
  • FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES, NON-SIGNATORIES, AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 1, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...personal jurisdiction in New York--because he "actively negotiated" the agreement and signed an "acknowledgement" of the agreement). (123) 571 U.S. 117, 134-35 (124) Ran/a v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1072 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 926 (9th Cir. 2001)). (1......
  • CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...abrogated on other grounds by Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2013). 35. See In re Hellenic, Inc., 252 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that although courts generally agree that the actions of high manage......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT