The Supreme Court has significantly expanded the possible grounds for personal jurisdiction against corporations, upholding Pennsylvania’s statute requiring foreign businesses registered in the Commonwealth to consent to...more
May you preserve an objection to personal jurisdiction by including a general denial to the complaint’s allegation in your answer and then moving to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds less than three (3) months later?...more
Jurisdictional rules are intended to be simple and thereby easy to administer and enforce. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 81, 94-95 (2010) (“[W]e place primary weight upon the need for judicial administration of a...more
Following closely on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark personal jurisdiction decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a decision that further reinforces the...more
With all attention focused on Executive Benefits, the Daimler decision could represent the real sea change in jurisdiction over non-core actions. Introduction - Recently, much of the bankruptcy bar was focused...more
The Supreme Court has issued two decisions that clarify the limitations of general and specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. A defendant corporation will be subject to general jurisdiction in a state only if...more
In Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. ____ (Jan. 14, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that general or “all-purpose” jurisdiction can be exercised over foreign corporations only “when their affiliations with the State...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a much anticipated decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman that will not only reverberate through the legal world, but the auto world as well. Large corporations that do business across a wide...more
In Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 644 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014) (Ginsburg, J.), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a court may not exercise general personal jurisdiction over a non-U.S. corporation...more
In prior reports, we have covered significant US court decisions addressing personal jurisdiction—the question whether, even if it is clear that certain claims may be raised in a US litigation, a particular individual or...more
The Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman (Jan. 14, 2014), dealing with the topic of “general jurisdiction,” significantly limits a plaintiff’s options as to where to bring a lawsuit. ...more
On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman held that Argentinian plaintiffs could not sue a German car manufacturer in California for human rights violations allegedly committed in Argentina. The...more
A sweeping decision by the Supreme Court on January 14 has further restricted the circumstances under which plaintiffs may sue multinational corporations in U.S. courts for harms occurring outside the United States....more
On January 14, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965—a closely watched personal jurisdiction case. In an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg for eight Justices, the Court reversed the Ninth...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Daimler AG v. Bauman, et al. that due process prevents a court from applying an "agency" theory to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based...more
This week marks the first Monday in October, which for Supreme Court watchers is a holiday: the start of a new term. While not everyone gets that excited about the new term, there are several cases that the Court intends to...more