Dissent in Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States
Daimler dramatically narrowed general jurisdiction over corporations by holding that a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where it is 'at home,' which is typically limited to its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. The decision rejected the notion that systematic and continuous contacts alone are sufficient for general jurisdiction.
What was the dissent in Daimler AG v. Bauman?
Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's 'at home' test. She argued that the majority's approach was too restrictive and that the Court should have resolved the case by holding that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, rather than by narrowing the general jurisdiction test itself.
Case Overview
Facts
Argentine residents sued Daimler AG, a German corporation, in the Northern District of California, alleging that Daimler's Argentine subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz Argentina, collaborated with state security forces during Argentina's Dirty War to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain workers at a plant in Argentina. The plaintiffs attempted to establish general jurisdiction over Daimler in California based on the California contacts of Daimler's U.S. subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA), which was headquartered in New Jersey but had significant operations in California.
Majority Holding
The Supreme Court held that California could not exercise general jurisdiction over Daimler. A corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where its affiliations are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially 'at home' in the forum state. For a corporation, the paradigm bases for general jurisdiction are the place of incorporation and the principal place of business. Even assuming MBUSA's contacts were attributable to Daimler, California was not Daimler's home.
Majority Reasoning
Justice Ginsburg wrote that International Shoe's 'continuous and systematic' language, when applied to general jurisdiction, must be understood as requiring contacts so substantial that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum. The Court emphasized that general jurisdiction subjects a defendant to suit on any claim, regardless of where the underlying events occurred, and therefore the standard should be demanding. Allowing general jurisdiction based merely on substantial business operations would mean that a corporation doing extensive business nationwide could be sued in every state on every claim, which would be 'unacceptably grasping.' The paradigm forums for general jurisdiction are incorporation and principal place of business, with an exceptional case possible in unusual circumstances.
The Dissenting Opinion
Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's 'at home' test. She argued that the majority's approach was too restrictive and that the Court should have resolved the case by holding that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, rather than by narrowing the general jurisdiction test itself.
Key Quotes
“A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.”
“With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are 'paradig[m] ... bases for general jurisdiction.'”
“A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them. Otherwise, 'at home' would be synonymous with 'doing business' tests framed before specific jurisdiction evolved in the United States.”
Impact and Legacy
Daimler fundamentally reshaped general jurisdiction by effectively limiting it to a corporation's place of incorporation and principal place of business in all but exceptional cases. This decision significantly reduced the forums in which plaintiffs can bring suit against multinational corporations and prompted a wave of jurisdictional challenges. The case also raised questions about whether the 'at home' test would extend to individuals and about what the 'exceptional case' exception might encompass.
Exam Relevance
Daimler is heavily tested on civil procedure exams for general jurisdiction questions. Students must be able to apply the 'at home' test and identify the paradigm bases for general jurisdiction. Exam questions often present corporations with substantial operations in multiple states and ask whether general jurisdiction exists. Students should also be prepared to discuss the 'exceptional case' dicta.
Study Tips
- Memorize the two paradigm bases for corporate general jurisdiction: state of incorporation and principal place of business.
- Understand why the Court rejected the 'doing business' test and adopted the more restrictive 'at home' standard.
- Be prepared to distinguish Daimler's general jurisdiction analysis from the specific jurisdiction analysis in Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ford Motor Co.
- Consider the practical implications: after Daimler, large corporations are typically subject to general jurisdiction in only two states.
Read the Full Case Analysis
View the complete brief for Daimler AG v. Bauman including full reasoning, doctrine, and study resources.
More Civil Procedure Dissents
Pennoyer v. Neff
95 U.S. 714 (1878) (1878)
Justice Hunt dissented, arguing that the Oregon statute authorizing service by publication was a valid exercise of state legislative power and that the procedure followed was sufficient to confer jurisdiction over nonresidents with property in the state.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) (1980)
Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that the majority's approach was too restrictive and that the defendants placed their products into the stream of commerce knowing they might reach any state. He contended that when a product causes injury in a forum state, the interests of the state and the injured plaintiff should weigh heavily in the jurisdictional analysis.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California
582 U.S. 255 (2017) (2017)
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that BMS's extensive activities in California, combined with its nationwide marketing of Plavix, created sufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction. She warned that the decision would impede the efficient resolution of mass tort litigation by preventing plaintiffs from consolidating their claims in a single forum.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
592 U.S. 351 (2021) (2021)
Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment but wrote separately, joined by Justice Thomas, questioning the majority's reliance on the 'relate to' language. He argued that the majority's approach was vague and suggested that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment might support a broader basis for jurisdiction. Justice Barrett took no part in the decision.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) (1938)
Justice Butler dissented, joined by Justice McReynolds, arguing that the question of overruling Swift had not been briefed or argued by the parties and that the doctrine of stare decisis counseled against overturning nearly a century of precedent without full adversarial consideration.
Hanna v. Plumer
380 U.S. 460 (1965) (1965)
Justice Harlan concurred in the result but wrote separately to argue that the majority's analysis was too permissive. He believed the test should focus on whether the choice between the federal and state rule would substantially affect the primary decisions of parties — i.e., whether the federal rule would affect behavior outside the courtroom.