DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman (Fall 2013)
DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman was argued at the Supreme Court in the October 2013 term. In Bauman, the Court considered whether a U.S. District Court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over DaimlerChrysler AG, a foreign company, based on the alleged acts of its Argentine subsidiary. None of the alleged actions occurred in California, but Respondents argued that the the contacts of DaimlerChrysler’s California subsidiary should be imputed to the parent company and thus that California may exercise general jurisdiction.
The authors had much material to work with on this issue, and how the Court would frame the case and answer its important questions was far from clear. The last time the Court took up issues of general jurisdiction was in Goodyear Dunlop Tires, S.A. v. Brown, but the Court left open many questions pertaining to general jurisdiction that it might take the opportunity to clarify in Bauman. There was also potential that the Court might speak to the scope of the Alien Tort Statute in the wake of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.
Professors Donald Childress, Howard Erichson, Burt Neuborne, Suzanna Sherry, and Linda Silberman have each considered the precedents and offered their views on how the Court might—or should—approach this case in their “First Impression” essays below.
Then, the authors responded to one another’s arguments in the “Responses” phase of the Roundtable. We hope you find this Roundtable to be both informative and engaging.
Roundtable: First Impressions
General Jurisdiction and the Transnational Law Market
PDF · Donald E. Childress III · 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 67 (2013).
The Home-State Test for General Personal Jurisdiction
PDF · Howard M. Erichson · 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 81 (2013).
General Jurisdiction, “Corporate Separateness,” and the Rule of Law
PDF · Burt Neuborne · 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 95 (2013).
Don’t Answer That! Why (and How) the Supreme Court Should Duck the Question in DaimlerChrysler v. Bauman
PDF · Suzanna Sherry · 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 111 (2013).
Jurisdictional Imputation in DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman: A Bridge Too Far
PDF · Linda J. Silberman · 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 123 (2013).
Why the Supreme Court Should Give the Easy Answer to an Easy Question: A Response to Professors Childress, Neuborne, Sherry and Silberman
PDF · Howard M. Erichson · 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 179 (2013).
Res Ipsa Loquitur (Or Why the Other Essays Prove My Point)
PDF · Suzanna Sherry · 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 197 (2013).
Some Reactions to the DaimlerChrysler v. BaumanRoundtable
PDF · Linda J. Silberman · 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 191 (2013).