|
Daimler AG v. Bauman is a United States Supreme Court case. In this case, the court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 DAIMLER AG v. BAUMAN - LII / Legal Information Institute )〕 The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 With Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler, High Court May Have Put Brakes On Forum Shopping - Forbes )〕 ==Background== Daimler Aktiengesellschaft is a Stuttgart, Germany based automotive manufacturer that owns Mercedes-Benz and its subsidiaries around the world, included the United States and Argentina. During the Argentina Dirty War a labor dispute developed at the Mercedes-Benz plant in González Catán. Mercedes-Benz reported the labor leaders as ‘subversives’ to the right wing military junta, had junta forces stationed within the factory and allowed the junta to conduct raids on workers.〔Brief for Respondents, http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/11-965-bs.pdf〕 Over the course of the dispute twenty-two labor leaders were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. Afterwards the police chief responsible for the ‘disappearances’ was hired as Mercedes-Benz Argentina’s chief of security and the company provided his legal defense against human rights abuse accusations.〔Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2011).〕 Twenty years later Mercedes-Benz’s role in Argentina’s Dirty War came to the attention of the German media. DaimlerChrysler AG responded to the accusations against its subsidiary by hiring Professor Christian Tomuschat to conduct an investigation. His exculpatory findings were criticized by Amnesty International. In 2004 the survivors sued DaimlerChrysler AG in a San Francisco federal district court alleging that its subsidiary’s activities during Argentina’s Dirty War gave rise to claims under the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act, and California state tort law. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that DaimlerChrysler’s wholly owned subsidiary Mercedes-Benz USA is not an agent of its owner, and that it would be unreasonable to exercise jurisdiction directly over DaimlerChrysler. Plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, with Judge Steven Reinhardt, the most frequently reversed US Appeals Court judge, dissenting.〔(Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 579 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2009). )〕 Plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing and, nine months later, the court granted the rehearing, vacated its earlier opinion and scheduled the case for reargument.〔(Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 07-15386 (9th Cir. May 6, 2010). )〕 However, the court then cancelled the reargument and instead released a new opinion, authored by Judge Reinhardt, that came to the opposite of its earlier conclusion.〔(Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011). )〕 Judge Reinhardt reversed the district court, finding that Mercedes-Benz USA was indeed an agent of DaimlerChrysler and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over DaimlerChrysler was reasonable “under the circumstances of this case”. DaimlerChrysler’s petition for a rehearing en banc was denied, with Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain authoring a dissent joined by seven other judges.〔(Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 676 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011). )〕 DaimlerChrysler (by then renamed Daimler AG) petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court and the petition was granted. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Daimler AG v. Bauman」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|