Bauman v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
644 F.3d 909
9th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are 22 Argentinian residents (and relatives) alleging MBA collaborated with Argentine security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and murder workers during Argentina's Dirty War.
- MBA is a wholly owned subsidiary of DCAG's predecessor; MBUSA, a DCAG subsidiary, operates in California and is the forum contact point.
- District court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs contend MBUSA is DCAG's agent for jurisdictional purposes, imputing MBUSA's CA contacts to DCAG.
- DCAG admitted MBUSA's extensive California presence (offices, centers, market share) and MBUSA's central role as the U.S. distributor; district court found MBUSA subject to general jurisdiction in CA.
- General Distributor Agreement between DCAG and MBUSA gives DCAG substantial control over MBUSA's operations and branding, suggesting an agency relationship for jurisdictional purposes.
- Court applies agency/general-jurisdiction framework to determine whether MBUSA's CA activities render DCAG subject to CA jurisdiction; ultimately holds DCAG is subject to California general jurisdiction via MBUSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MBUSA is DCAG's agent for general jurisdiction in California | MBUSA acts as DCAG's agent; MBUSA's CA activities justify imputing DCAG's contacts. | No agency; DCAG and MBUSA operate at arms-length; MBUSA's CA presence does not render DCAG general jurisdiction. | Yes; MBUSA is DCAG's agent for general jurisdiction. |
| Whether the agency relationship satisfies the 'sufficiently important' and 'control' elements of the agency test | MBUSA provides essential services for DCAG's U.S. market; DCAG retains significant control over MBUSA. | Agency not demonstrated; services could be provided by others; control is not enough. | Yes; MBUSA's services are sufficiently important and DCAG retains substantial control, satisfying the agency test. |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction over DCAG in California is reasonable under the seven-factor test | California has strong interest in adjudicating ATS/TVPA claims; MBUSA's California presence and DCAG's U.S. market integration support reasonableness. | Existence of Argentina/Germany as alternative forums and burdens on DCAG weigh against jurisdiction. | Yes; overall factors favor reasonableness; California jurisdiction is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2001) (prima facie jurisdiction standard when no evidentiary hearing)
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir.1977) (agency theory of personal jurisdiction; presence in forum suffices)
- Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc., 39 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir.1994) (agency test for personal jurisdiction; services sufficiently important)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (general jurisdiction limits; presence not automatically sufficient)
- Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2003) (agency/sufficient importance under agency test; seven-factor reasonableness test)
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000) (TVPA/ATS forum interests and availability of forum as factor)
- Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 550 F.3d 822 (9th Cir.2008) (exhaustion considerations for ATS TVPA claims; forum availability)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S.1985) (due process and reasonableness in jurisdiction analysis)