676 F.3d 774
9th Cir.2011Background
- Twenty-two Argentinian residents sue DaimlerChrysler A.G. in California federal court over alleged human rights violations in Argentina during the Dirty War.
- Daimler is a German corporation; Mercedes-Benz Argentina is its subsidiary alleged to have committed abuses.
- Mercedes-Benz USA, a California-based subsidiary of Daimler, is not a party to the suit.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the panel later held general jurisdiction over Daimler based on the U.S. subsidiary’s contacts.
- The dissent argues the panel broadened general jurisdiction beyond Goodyear’s constraints by adopting an expansive agency-test.
- The court denied rehearing and rehearing en banc; the dissent would grant en banc rehearing to overrule the panel’s approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency test justifies general jurisdiction over a foreign parent | Bauman: agency test expands jurisdiction unconstitutionally | Daimler: agency test properly imputes subsidiary contacts | No; the agency test is too expansive and violates due process |
| Whether parent and subsidiary corporate separateness allows imputed contacts | Bauman: separate entities; no general jurisdiction | Daimler: authority to control allows imputation | No; there is insufficient right to control to justify general jurisdiction |
| Whether the panel’s ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedent and sister circuits | Bauman: decision breaks Goodyear and comity | Daimler: panel correctly extended jurisdiction | No; decision conflicts with Goodyear and other circuits |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (requires 'essentially at home' standard for general jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (due process minimum assurance where liable to suit)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (state not free to assert jurisdiction with uncertain reach)
- Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333 (1925) (corporate separation is real; cannot impute general jurisdiction from subsidiary ownership)
- Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc., 39 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994) (agency/alter-ego analysis in subsidiary-parent context)
- Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (alter ego/agency framework for imputing jurisdiction)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) (corporate separateness and jurisdictional boundaries)