Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Abstract

It is striking that all five of the contributors to the Roundtable conclude that California should not be able to obtain jurisdiction over the German corporation, DaimlerChrysler, for human rights claims based in Argentina, on the basis of the activities of its U.S. subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA) in California. If the Supreme Court agrees, it will be interesting to see on what grounds it bases its decision. Both my colleague Burt Neuborne and I, though approaching the issue from different perspectives, focus on the lack of any regulatory interest by California with respect to the human rights claims asserted against DaimlerChrysler. Professor Neuborne embraces a broad theory of corporate integration and then limits the application of that theory in this case on grounds of reasonableness. I am more inclined to offer a bright-line test that would constrain imputation of an "agency" theory to cases of specific jurisdiction, and I see that the actual merits brief filed by Daimler in the Supreme Court takes precisely that position. I do agree with Professor Neuborne that formal agency doctrine is less useful than a more functional approach in the context of the modern corporation, and I too would embrace the concept of the "multinational enterprise" but only as applied to specific jurisdiction.

First Page

191

Volume

66

Publication Date

2013

Download

Share

COinS