902 F. Supp. 2d 974
E.D. Mich.2012Background
- Plaintiff filed Title VII discrimination/retaliation, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and South Carolina Wage Payment Act claims against Daimler AG, Daimler Financial Services AG, and Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA, LLC.
- Original complaint alleged alter ego/control by German Defendants over Mercedes and substantial contacts in South Carolina; Mercedes was a Delaware LLC with Michigan nexus.
- Case transferred from South Carolina to the Eastern District of Michigan; pending motions included Daimler Defendants’ dismissal/summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
- Plaintiff moved to amend to drop alter ego theory and rely on subsidiary-based contacts; proposed amendments added tortious interference, contractual interference, and conspiracy claims.
- Court granted leave to amend first, and then granted the German Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Mercedes remains as the only defendant in the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Daimler AG and Daimler Financial Services AG | Plaintiff asserts agency/alter ego links via subsidiaries and conspiracy | Defendants contest contacts and do not allege sufficient ties to Michigan | Lack of personal jurisdiction; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Plaintiff should be allowed to amend to address jurisdiction | Amendment necessary to assert jurisdictional theories | Amendment futile on jurisdiction grounds | Granted leave to file First Amended Complaint; amended pleading to be considered |
| Whether the court should apply Bauman’s agency test for general jurisdiction | Agency test supports general jurisdiction over German Defendants | Sixth Circuit has not endorsed the agency test | Declined to apply Bauman agency test; no general jurisdiction |
| Whether personal jurisdiction can be established via alter ego theory | Parent- subsidiary control may make Daimler a single entity | Plaintiff did not allege sufficient factors; Mercedes not direct subsidiary | Not proven; alter ego theory rejected; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kroger Co. v. Malease Foods Corp., 437 F.3d 506 (6th Cir.2006) (prima facie jurisdictional showing when no evidentiary hearing)
- Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454 (6th Cir.1991) (jurisdictional burden and discovery options)
- Conn v. Zakharov, 667 F.3d 705 (6th Cir.2012) (pleadings considered in light most favorable to plaintiff)
- Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir.2011) (agency vs alter ego tests for general jurisdiction; circuit split)
- Estate of Thomson v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F.3d 357 (6th Cir.2008) (alter-ego factors for jurisdiction)
- Indah v. United States Sec. and Exchg. Comm’n, 661 F.3d 914 (6th Cir.2011) (alter-ego framework and factors for jurisdiction)
- General Motors Corp. v. Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua, 948 F. Supp. 656 (E.D. Mich.1996) (conspiracy-based jurisdiction discussion in district court)
- Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson, 21 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.App. 2000) (example cited for alter ego considerations (state court))