Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
General Jurisdiction After <i>Daimler AG v. Bauman</i>
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), announced a sweeping change to the law of personal jurisdiction. The Daimler Court held that a corporate defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction ' jurisdiction over suits unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum ' only where the corporation may fairly be “regarded as at home,” which is generally limited to the defendant's state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. Id. at 760-61 & n.19. In announcing this strict standard, the Daimler Court rejected the rule, long applied by many lower courts, permitting the exercise of general jurisdiction in any forum where a corporate defendant maintained an office or was otherwise “doing business.” Id. at 761-62 & n.20.
At least initially, Daimler was understood by many to have signaled the end of “doing business” as a basis for general, “all-purpose” jurisdiction. But since Daimler, a number of courts have issued decisions that, if widely adopted, would resurrect the “doing business” standard under another name, and would reduce the Supreme Court's “at-home” requirement to a nullity. According to these courts, whenever an out-of-state corporation registers to do business with a secretary of state and appoints an agent for service of process, that defendant consents to general jurisdiction over all disputes brought in the courts of the forum state, regardless of whether the corporation is “at home” in that state. This sort of reasoning is, in our view, both foreclosed by Daimler and based on a theory of consent that is at odds with decades of personal-jurisdiction jurisprudence under International Shoe Co. v. Washington. As a result, and as explained herein, courts should reject this consent-based theory of general jurisdiction and instead apply the “at home” standard expressly adopted in Daimler.
General Jurisdiction Under International Shoe
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?