DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, et al.

Does it violate due process for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on the fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of the defendant in the forum state?

The U.S. Chamber has not yet filed its amicus brief on the merits.

Previously, the U.S. Chamber urged the U.S. Supreme Court to take this case and decide whether due process is violated when a court exercises general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on the fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of the defendant in the forum state. In this case, the Ninth Circuit permitted plaintiffs to assert general jurisdiction over a foreign parent company based on the contacts of its indirectly held subsidiary in an attempt to hold that foreign parent accountable in United States court for the alleged conduct of an entirely different subsidiary that took place in a foreign country. In its amicus brief, the Chamber argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision adds to the widening Circuit Court split on this issue. The Chamber urged the Supreme Court to intervene in order to clarify the murky standards governing the imputation of jurisdictional contacts - which currently work to discourage commercial activity, undermine foreign relations, and limit foreign investment in the United States.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided this case on the merits.

Amicus brief filed 3/8/12. Cert. granted 4/22/13.