In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the extraterritorial reach of U.S. courts to hear claims for violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013). While interested parties and scholars parse the several complex opinions in Kiobel, the court has now granted certiorari to determine when U.S. courts have general personal jurisdiction to hear an important subset of international human rights and other cases. DaimlerChrysler A.G. v. Bauman, No. 11-965. In DaimlerChrysler, the court could clarify key tests for determining when general personal jurisdiction exists.
In DaimlerChrysler, the plaintiffs, residents of Argentina, filed claims in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against DaimlerChrysler A.G., the parent German company resulting from the 1998 merger of Daimler-Benz A.G. and Chrysler Corp. The plaintiffs alleged human rights violations by the German company under the Alien Tort Statute and also the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350. The plaintiffs assert that the Argentine subsidiary of Daimler A.G. collaborated with the Argentine military in committing serious human-rights violations during the Argentine "Dirty War." Significantly, the plaintiffs did not identify any acts relating to their claims that occurred in the United States by Daimler A.G. or any other member of the automaker's group. Nor did they allege that the U.S. sales and distribution subsidiary of Daimler A.G., Mercedes-Benz U.S.A, or the U.S. holding company, DaimlerChrysler Corp., played any role in the alleged violations. After limited jurisdictional discovery and without an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Daimler A.G.
