However, in 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Daimler AG v. Bauman, (2014), that a court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over an entity only when its “affiliations with the state are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render the entity essentially at home in the forum state,” as held in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014). The Supreme Court indicated that the paradigm forum for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over a corporation is its state of incorporation or its principal place of business. The Daimler decision significantly narrowed the scope of when it is constitutionally permissible to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a corporation.
Following Daimler, it has been widely accepted that merely because a defendant regularly conducts business in the state; advertises in the state; has employees, offices or agents in the state; has traveled to the state; has entered into contracts in the state; or has generated substantial revenues in the state; these factors are insufficient to render the defendant “at home” in the state. The Daimler ruling has provided defendants a basis to challenge personal jurisdiction in jurisdictions where the conduct giving rise to the injury did not occur and where the defendant was not incorporated and did not have its principal place of business. A dismissal for lack of general personal jurisdiction would not prevent another lawsuit from being filed against that defendant in a jurisdiction where the injury occurred or where the defendant is deemed to be at home. However, the available jurisdictions may not be one of the plaintiff’s magical jurisdictions.
