1
© 2013 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com
Attorney Advertising
Client Alert
April 29, 2013
The Supreme Court Again Revisits (And May Rein In)
Personal Jurisdiction: Two Cases Now Up Next Term
By Grant J. Esposito and Brian R. Matsui
On April 22, 2013, the Supreme Court granted review in another personal jurisdiction case: DaimlerChrysler AG
v. Bauman, No. 11-965 (cert. granted Apr. 22, 2013). The question presented in DaimlerChrysler is “whether it
violates due process for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely
on the fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of the defendant in the forum State.”
And earlier this Term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a specific personal jurisdiction case—Walden v.
Fiore, No. 12-574 (cert. granted Mar. 4, 2013). The question presented in Walden is “[w]hether due process
permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose sole ‘contact’ with the forum State is his
knowledge that the plaintiff has connections to that State.” Both DaimlerChrysler and Walden arise from the Ninth
Circuit. They will be argued in fall 2013, with a decision expected no later than the end of June 2014.1
Both of these cases are of significant interest to businesses, as personal jurisdiction delimits a court’s ability to
hale a defendant into court and subject that defendant to the court’s power and punishment. The Supreme Court
has frequently declined to engage in issues of personal jurisdiction. Indeed, until its pair of decisions during the
October 2010 Term, the Supreme Court had not significantly addressed personal jurisdiction since 1987, when
the Court splintered in its decision governing specific personal jurisdiction in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior
Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102 (1987).
• DaimlerChrysler will address the standard for general personal jurisdiction based on imputing the contacts of
in-forum subsidiaries to foreign parent corporations.
• Walden will address what it means for a defendant to “expressly aim” its conduct at a forum, such that a State
has specific personal jurisdiction over an alleged intentional tortfeasor.
These two grants follow closely on the heels of the Supreme Court’s rulings in June 2011 in Goodyear Dunlop
Tires Operations and J. McIntyre Machinery—where the Supreme Court limited the ability of state courts to assert
personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants. (Our prior client alert on those cases is available here.)
DaimlerChrysler
DaimlerChrysler will address the circumstances in which an in-state subsidiary’s contacts with the forum State are
sufficient for the forum State to have general jurisdiction over the foreign parent corporation.
1 Walden also addresses a separate venue question presented: “Whether the judicial district where the plaintiff suffered injury is a district ‘in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred’ for purposes of establishing venue under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(2) even if the defendant’s alleged acts and omissions all occurred in another district.” This article does not address the venue
question presented.
