U.S. top court curbs human rights claims in Daimler ruling

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Reuters

U.S. top court curbs human rights claims in Daimler ruling
Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:09pm EST
By Lawrence Hurley

Jan 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Daimler AG cannot be sued in California over alleged abuses in Argentina, a decision likely to erode further the reputation of the United States as a global venue for human rights claims.

The 9-0 decision was the second by the high court in less than a year to make it harder for plaintiffs to sue foreign-based multinational corporations in U.S. courts for alleged human rights violations. Lower courts already have thrown out similar lawsuits based on a 2013 Supreme Court decision.

In Tuesday's ruling, the justices said companies must do substantial business in the United States to be sued there. The fact that the German-based automaker owns a U.S.-based subsidiary that does business in California was not enough for the lawsuit to proceed, the court said.

Daimler faced allegations that a subsidiary violated the human rights of workers at a plant in Argentina in the 1970s.

The court ruled on a unanimous vote that the lawsuit could not go ahead. The justices said Daimler's connections with California, where the lawsuit was filed, were not sufficient for it to face a lawsuit there.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/usa-court-rights-idUSL2N0KO0X320140114?rpc=401

[happyslug]

1. Here is the actual opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-965_1qm2.pdf

It is a Ginsberg opinion.

First the Court made a distinguish between Specific and General Jurisdiction. Given that NONE of the harm occurred in California and the Defendant main office was in Germany NOT California, it was clear California had NO specif Jurisdiction over the case (The Daimler subsidiary in California had no connection with the Daimler Subsidy in Argentina EXCEPT through the main office in Germany). The court went on and said such Specific jurisdiction, depending on facts like the incident occurred in the state, the Defendant lives in the State etc (Something SPECIFIC in the case happened in the State where the case was filed). If it can be shown that their were substantial contact with the state that would be sufficient for Specific Jurisdiction over that specific case.

The Court then went into General Jurisdiction and pointed out that only exists where someone lives or if a corporation has its primary office in that state. General Jurisdiction does NOT include situations where someone enters a state to get training, or to buy things (Unless the training or item purchases were the things in litigation, but that is specific jurisdiction).

The court then ruled since NOTHING happened in California in regards to what happened in Argentina in the 1970s, there was NO SPECIFIC JURISDICTION. No one really disputed that issue, the real fight was over General Jurisdiction, did the fact Daimler had a subsidy in California give California jurisdiction over the case? The Court ruled NO, the Subsidy was NOT the same as the Main Company AND it was another subsidy in Argentina that did the alleged wrong. A party needs more then mere prescience in a States for the State to have General Jurisdiction over the party.

Basically the Court ruled, unless something involved in the underlying cause of action occurred in the Jurisdiction OR the MAIN office of a Defendant is in that State, that State has NO jurisdiction over the legal action and it should be filed in the state or nation where the incident occurred OR the main office is.