October Term 2013 · Docket 11-965
Can a foreign company be sued in California for global claims?
Daimler AG disputes a lower court finding that it faces general jurisdiction in California. Plaintiffs seek to sue the German parent for worldwide conduct.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Daimler AG's counsel argued that the Due Process Clause does not provide fixed rules for attributing contacts. He stated that the subsidiary's presence does not automatically create jurisdiction over the parent. He emphasized the need for a clear constitutional standard.
Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the case involves multiple complex questions. He noted that only two issues were adequately preserved for review. He contended that the lower court correctly applied California law to attribute the subsidiary's contacts to the parent.
Justice Kagan questioned whether the attribution standard matters if no general jurisdiction exists over Daimler. She asked if attributing all subsidiary contacts still fails to establish jurisdiction over the parent. She sought clarification on the relationship between state law and constitutional limits.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the limits of general jurisdiction. General jurisdiction lets a court hear any claim against a defendant. It usually requires the defendant to be essentially at home in that state. Daimler AG is a German company. Its U. S. subsidiary operates in California. Plaintiffs want to sue Daimler AG in California.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-33
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 15, 2013.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-39
What each side wants
Daimler AG wants the Court to rule that California lacks general jurisdiction over it. It seeks to dismiss the case and prevent global suits in California.
Plaintiffs want the Court to uphold the lower court finding. They seek to keep the case in California and sue Daimler AG for worldwide conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-33
What each side says
Daimler AG argues that due process limits general jurisdiction. It claims a foreign parent is not at home in a state just because a subsidiary operates there. It asserts the subsidiary's contacts cannot be attributed to the parent for jurisdiction purposes.
Plaintiffs argue that the subsidiary's deep ties to California make the parent at home there. They contend that corporate form should not shield the parent from liability for global acts. They assert that California law allows attributing the subsidiary's contacts to the parent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-33
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the Court would reach the main question if the subsidiary lacked general jurisdiction.
Justice Scalia asked if California cases previously disregarded the corporate form in similar contexts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-7
Why it matters
This case defines where foreign companies can be sued for global conduct. It sets the standard for attributing a subsidiary's local presence to a parent company. The outcome shapes the balance between state power and corporate mobility. It affects how plaintiffs access courts for international claims. It clarifies the constitutional limits on general jurisdiction for multinationals.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-33
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-33
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.