Workers and relatives of employees of the Gonzalez-Catan plant of Mercedes Benz Argentina sued the company for violating the 1991 Law on the Protection of Victims of Torture. They alleged that during the 1976-1983 “Dirty War” in Argentina, the company wanted to punish workers suspected of being union agitators and cooperated with the Argentine military and police to allow raids on the plant. The plaintiffs claimed that the company benefited from those actions. They sued the company while the company filed for a dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction. The problem was that general jurisdiction cannot be exercised over a foreign company if the actions are insignificant and not related to the claim.
The opposing sides of the argument are the workers and employees of the Gonzalez-Catan plant of Mercedes Benz and the company itself. On January 14, 2014, the case was decided when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed (Daimler AG v. Bauman). Judge Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring with the court’s decision. The corporation’s close contacts with the state were not so systematic as to make the corporation essentially domestic in the state. In addition, neither the corporation nor the U.S. subsidiary was registered or had a primary place of business in the state, which was the basis for general jurisdiction. Hence, the importance of the issue is related to the relations in the foreign company. The numbers of ‘for and against’ voices were equal, and the court could not come to the concurring decision at first. In general, I do not think the ideology impacted the case.
In the discussed case, the plaintiffs referred only to the general or universal jurisdiction of the court. California was a place where a foreign defendant could be sued for any claim against him, no matter where in the world the claims arose (Daimler AG v. Bauman). The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation for conduct that took place entirely outside the United States. The only case is if the corporation’s affiliation with the state in which the suit was filed was permanent and widespread that it was essentially at home in the court’s state.
In this case, it is necessary to guarantee the large enterprise that the claims of organizations based entirely on the outer side of the work will not be settled in a state other than the enterprise’s headquarters. The lawyer must request from the district court and the district court information about which, in addition to the place of registration and the central area of work of the organization, the organization will fall under the general authority.
This decision leaves important questions open, including whether agency theory as a whole can lead to shared power. Although one can see that the shared jurisdiction in which extra is located is the alter ego of the parent company. This is unfair to small businesses in the sense that they will fall under general jurisdiction and their international rivals will not. Besides, it seems unfair to individuals, because when they visit a state, they may be subjected to a process and fall under general jurisdiction, while a fictional individual may not. How do you feel about the decision made and what could be a different result? Do you think if the specific jurisdiction could cover the case, what would the outcomes be?
Reference
“Daimler AG v. Bauman.” Oyez. n. d. Web.