Rasmussen v. General Motors Corp.
803 N.W.2d 623
Wis.2011Background
- Rasmussen sues Nissan Japan and its wholly owned subsidiary Nissan North America for antitrust/conspiracy claims in Wisconsin.
- Nissan Japan moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. § 801.05(l)(d), arguing it had no Wisconsin activities and that Nissan North America is a separate entity.
- Circuit court conducted jurisdictional discovery; found no control by Nissan Japan sufficient to disregard corporate separateness and dismissed Nissan Japan.
- Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding agency-based imputations under § 801.05(4)(a) do not support general jurisdiction; no piercing of the corporate veil.
- Rasmussen sought review; Wisconsin Supreme Court granted and affirmed, reiterating limits on imputing subsidiary activities to a nonresident parent for general jurisdiction.
- Concurrence notes concerns about analogies to agency and piercing the corporate veil and emphasizes control-focused analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 801.05(l)(d) supports general jurisdiction over Nissan Japan via Nissan North America. | Rasmussen argues agency/alter ego or control justifies imputing subsidiary activities to parent. | Nissan Japan contends corporate separateness requires independent acts; agency alone is insufficient for general jurisdiction. | No general jurisdiction; agency and lack of control do not justify imputing subsidiary acts. |
| Whether the parent and subsidiary's corporate separateness can be disregarded for purposes of general jurisdiction. | Citations to alter ego/piercing the corporate veil support disregarding separateness. | Record shows independent decision-making, proper formalities, and no fraud; separateness must be preserved. | Rasmussen failed to prove control sufficient to disregard separateness; Nissan Japan not subject to general jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 660 (WD Wis. 1998) (alter-ego/agency limits for general jurisdiction over parent)
- Clement v. United Cerebral Palsy of S.E. Wis., Inc., 87 Wis. 2d 327 (1979) (five-factor framework for relatedness of contacts and forum interests)
- Conservatorship of Prom v. Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., 224 Wis.2d 743 (Ct. App. 1999) (15 Cemetery Services factors to assess corporate integrity/control)
- Pavalon v. Fishman, 30 Wis. 2d 228 (1966) (agency-based jurisdiction; limits to specific jurisdiction)
- Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc., 273 Wis. 2d 106 (2004) (franchisor/franchisee control over day-to-day operations; no vicarious liability absent control)
- Huck v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 4 Wis. 2d 132 (1958) (doing business-style jurisdiction based on presence in state)
- Lau v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co., 14 Wis. 2d 329 (1961) (solicitation/officer presence in state supports general jurisdiction)