The Post-Daimler Split On In Personam Jurisdiction
September 19, 2016
Types : Bylined Articles
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman has altered the legal landscape as to where a corporate defendant, foreign or domestic, may be sued. In Daimler, a case in which relevant events took place entirely outside the United States, the court considered whether a defendant that was incorporated under the laws of Delaware and had its principal place of business in New Jersey was subject to the general (or all-purpose) in personam jurisdiction of the courts in California. The court held that general in personam jurisdiction over the defendant could not attach consistent with due process of law, despite the fact that the defendant operated multiple California-based facilities (including a regional office and two other centers) and that the defendant’s sales of new luxury vehicles to the California market accounted for 10 percent of all sales of new luxury vehicles in the United States and 2.4 percent of the defendant’s parent’s worldwide sales. Id. at 752. Pre-Daimler, the California court’s exercise of general in personam jurisdiction over this defendant seemed to have been entirely supportable. However, the Daimler Court concluded otherwise, warning that if the defendant’s “California activities sufficed to allow adjudication of this Argentina-rooted case in California, the same global reach would presumably be available in every other State in which [the defendant’s] sales are sizable.” Id. at 750.
Albert Piccerilli is of counsel in Montgomery McCracken’s Philadelphia and Cherry Hill, New Jersey, offices and a member of the firm’s litigation department.
Cora Dayon is an associate in the firm’s Cherry Hill office.
To view the full Law360 article, please click here.
Product Liability, Toxic Torts and Catastrophic Events
Learn more about our Product Liability, Toxic Torts and Catastrophic Events Practice