California Court of Appeal, Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc., Docket No. A159148

 

Personal Jurisdiction

Purposeful Availment

Labor Law

California Law

 

 

Charles Swenberg brought this action against dmarcian, Inc., Timothy Draegen, and Martijn Groeneweg, alleging various claims related to his ownership interest in and employment with the company. This appeal is from the trial court’s order granting Groeneweg’s motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons explained herein, we reverse and remand.

 

Dmarcian, Inc. (“dmarcian”) was incorporated in Delaware in 2014, and, in 2017, registered with the California Secretary of State as a foreign corporation with its “principal executive office” in Burlingame, California.

 

Draegen is a co- founder of the company, its chief executive officer (CEO) and majority shareholder, and resides and works in North Carolina. Groeneweg, who resides in the Netherlands, is alleged to be a chief executive of, and have an ownership interest in, “a company whose true name is unknown to Swenberg, but which was a European affiliate entity of dmarcian” and “was referred to colloquially as dmarcian EU.” The complaint alleges on information and belief that Groeneweg is presently a shareholder or beneficial owner of dmarcian. Swenberg, who resides in California, is a co-founder of dmarcian and worked for the company as a consultant in 2016, then as chief revenue officer (CRO) and finally as chief operating officer (COO) until his termination on May 31, 2018.

 

Groeneweg’s declaration states he is a 25 percent shareholder in dmarcian Europe BV, which he described as (in the same terms Draegen described dmarcian) as selling and marketing “an email authentication protocol specification (called ‘DMARC’) that assists customers in streamlining email communications by filtering out spam, malware, and phishing emails from email inboxes.” Groeneweg stated that the company provides these services “throughout Europe, Russia, and Africa.”

 

“California courts may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents ‘on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) The statute ‘manifests an intent to exercise the broadest possible jurisdiction, limited only by constitutional considerations. [Citations.]’ (Sibley v. Superior Court [(1976)] 16 Cal.3d [442,] 445.) A state may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident as long as he or she has ‘minimum contacts’ with that forum such that ‘maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” [Citations.]’ (Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.)” (Taylor-Rush v. Multitech
Corp. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 103, 112 (Taylor-Rush); Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262 (Pavlovich.)

 

“When jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Taylor-Rush, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 112, quoting Sibley v. Superior Court, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 445.) The plaintiff must prove the factual basis justifying exercise of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428 (BBA Aviation).) “The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate” and “cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts.” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222; BBA Aviation, at p. 428; In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)

 

“ ‘Under the minimum contacts test, “an essential criterion in all cases is whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that
State.” ’ ” (Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 314, 327 (Epic Communications), quoting Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268.) “ ‘The “substantial connection” [citations] between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. [Citations.]’ (Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 112.) A defendant’s physical presence in the state is not required, as long as his or her efforts were “ ‘purposely directed’ ” toward residents of that state. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 476; St. Joe Paper Co. v. Superior Court (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 991, 997.) Thus, personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a defendant who has caused an effect in the forum state by an act or omission occurring elsewhere. (McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223–224; Sibley v. Superior Court, supra, 16 Cal.3d at pp. 445–446; Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898–899.)” (Taylor-Rush, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 112.) But there must be evidence the nonresident defendant intentionally targeted his or her conduct at the forum state and not just at a plaintiff who lives in that state. (Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, 13, 25 (Burdick); Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 288 (Walden).)

 

Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. (Epic Communications, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 327.) “General jurisdiction exists where the defendant has such pervasive contacts with the forum state that it is fair to subject it to jurisdiction for all purposes. (DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court [(2002)] 104 Cal.App.4th [1080,] 1090, 1097.) . . . Specific jurisdiction exists when, though the defendant lacks such pervasive forum contacts that he may be treated as present for all purposes, it is nonetheless proper to subject him to the forum state’s jurisdiction in connection with a particular controversy.” (Epic Communications, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 327.) “ ‘When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the “ ‘relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’ ” [Citations.] A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) “the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits” [citation]; (2) “the ‘controversy is related to or “arises out of” the defendant’s contacts with the forum’ ” [citations]; and (3) “ ‘the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice” ’ ” [citations].’ ” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062, quoting Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.)

 

“ ‘ “The purposeful availment inquiry . . . focuses on the defendant’s intentionality. [Citation.] This prong is only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs its activities toward the forum so that it should expect, by virtue of the benefit it receives, to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction based on” its contacts with the forum.’ (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269, quoting U.S. v. Swiss American Bank, Ltd. (1st Cir. 2001) 274 F.3d 610, 623–624.) Thus, purposeful availment occurs where a nonresident defendant ‘ “purposefully directs” its activities at residents of the forum’ (Burger King [Corp. v. Rudzewicz], supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472), ‘ “purposefully derives benefit” from’ its activities in the forum (id. at p. 473,), ‘creates a “substantial connection” with the forum’ (id. at p. 475), ‘ “deliberately” has engaged in significant activities within’ the forum (id. at pp. 475–476), or ‘has created “continuing obligations” between itself and residents of the forum’ (id. at p. 476). By limiting the scope of a forum’s jurisdiction in this manner, the ‘ “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts. . . .’ (Id. at p. 475.) Instead, the defendant will only be subject to personal jurisdiction if ‘ “it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the state.” ’ (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269, quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, 444 U.S. at p. 297.)” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 1062–1063.)

The “ ‘minimum contacts’ analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.’ ” (Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 543, 554–555, quoting Walden, supra, 571 U.S. at p. 285.) “ ‘The plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum. Rather, it is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him.’ ” (David L. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 359, 372, quoting Walden, at p. 285.) “To find specific jurisdiction, a court must look to the defendant’s ‘own’ suit-related contacts with the forum to see if they create a ‘substantial connection with the forum State,’ not just ‘with persons who reside there.’ ” (David L., at p. 372, quoting Walden, at pp. 284–285.)

 

Swenberg presented compelling evidence that Groeneweg publicly presented himself as one of the leaders of dmarcian, with no hint there was a distinction between dmarcian and any other entity Groeneweg was associated with. It is undisputed that dmarcian and dmarcian EU shared a Web site; accordingly, anyone who attempted to access a Web site for dmarcian EU would be redirected to the dmarcian Web site. On the dmarcian Web site, Groeneweg appears immediately below Draegen, the CEO (identified by name and location in the United States) and above two individuals identified as “General Manager APAC Melbourne, Australia” and “General Manager Americas Asheville, USA.” Although the exhibit in the record on appeal is incomplete, in that the text beneath Groeneweg’s name is obscured by what appears to be a pop-up message on the computer screen, it is obvious from the format of this section of the Web site that the hidden information would read—as Swenberg’s attorney indicated in his declaration—“General Manager Europe.” Other employees are similarly presented with photographs, names, and locations in various parts of the world. The obvious impression imparted by the Web site is a company with operations run by regional managers in different geographic areas.

 

The same impression is conveyed by Groeneweg’s LinkedIn profile, which describes him as “General Manager Europe at dmarcian” and, under “Experience,” “Co-Founder and General Manager Europe.” The accompanying text describes “dmarcian” and its business without reference to dmarcian EU or any other entity: “Companies use dmarcian to rapidly and accurately deploy DMARC . . .”; “The mission of dmarcian is to fix the email ecosystem”; “dmarcian has 19,000 customers . . . .” Other dmarcian EU employees’ LinkedIn pages similarly describe the business of “dmarcian” and provide as examples of dmarcian’s customers a world-wide list including companies headquartered and doing business in California, such as AirBnb and GAP.

 

That dmarcian EU’s Internet presence was a shared Web site, administered by dmarcian in California, where a dmarcian employee would assign prospective customers to dmarcian EU, indicates at the very least a strong business association between dmarcian EU and dmarcian: dmarcian was dmarcian EU’s source for customers contacting the company through the Web site.

 

By publicly presenting himself as a leader of dmarcian, a company headquartered in California, having dmarcian EU’s web address automatically route to dmarcian’s Web site, administered in California, and receiving prospective customers directed to dmarcian EU by a dmarcian employee in California, Groeneweg “ ‘ “purposely availed himself . . . of forum benefits” ’ ” and “ ‘ “purposefully derived benefit” from’ his activities in the forum.” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 1062–1063.) A California court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Groeneweg in litigation related to his role in dmarcian can hardly be seen as based on “ ‘ “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts.’ ” (Ibid.) Having established and made economic use of a relationship with a California company and its employees, Groeneweg could reasonably expect to be subject to the jurisdiction of California courts in litigation connected to this relationship.

 

Swenberg’s claims clearly relate to Groeneweg’s business relationship with dmarcian: The gist of Swenberg’s complaint is that he had an agreement with Draegen for dmarcian to acquire an ownership share in dmarcian EU that was violated by Draegen and Groeneweg secretly negotiating a deal for Draegen to acquire the interest personally, thereby defeating Swenberg’s expectation of an ownership interest in dmarcian EU. He further alleged that his complaints about this situation resulted in retaliation including termination of his position at dmarcian.

 

“A state may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident who purposefully avails himself or herself of forum benefits, because the state has ‘a “manifest interest” in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors. [Citations.] Moreover, where individuals “purposefully derive benefit” from their interstate activities [citation] it may well be unfair to allow them to escape having to account in other States for consequences that arise proximately from such activities.’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 447, quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 473–474.)

 

(California Court of Appeal, July 30, 2021, Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc., Docket No. A159148, Certified for Publication)

 

 

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. v. Beneficio De Arroz Choloma, S.A., a Honduran Company, Docket No. 18-16026

 

Jurisdiction

 

Personal Jurisdiction

 

Specific Jurisdiction Over Employees

 

Forum Non Conveniens

 

Import

 

Incoterms

 

CIF Contracts

 

California Law

 

 

The panel reversed the district court’s order dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction, vacated its orders on the parties’ remaining motions, and remanded with instructions to deny the forum non conveniens motion in an action brought by Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. (“Global”), a California corporation, against Beneficio De Arroz Choloma, S.A. (“Bachosa”), a Honduran corporation, and two of its officers to recover losses on contracts.

 

Global is a California corporation with its headquarters in Placer County, California. At the time of the events giving rise to this action, it was engaged in the business of international sales of agricultural commodities. Bachosa is a corporation organized under the laws of Honduras with its principal place of business in Choloma, Cortés, Honduras. It is engaged in the business of importing and processing rice and corn from countries including the United States. Bachosa has no offices, real property, or employees in California.

 

From 2008 through 2012, Bachosa purchased approximately 137,450 metric tons of agricultural commodities from Global for more than $50 million pursuant to hundreds of separately negotiated contracts. The contracts generally were cost, insurance, freight (“CIF”) contracts, meaning Global’s contractual performance was considered complete when the goods were loaded at the point of shipment. Global and Bachosa primarily negotiated their contracts by phone and email.

 

(…) Following the alleged January meeting in California, Global arranged for shipment under the contracts. The United States Department of Agriculture issued an inspection certificate for the rice and corn in Woodland, California. The goods were shipped from the United States from Port of Darrow, Louisiana to Puerto Cortes, Honduras on the MV UBC Sacramento on January 19, 2012.

 

(…) See, e.g., Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that a single eBay sale to a California resident did not give rise to personal jurisdiction there).

 

Specific jurisdiction over Andonie and Jarufe presents a different question: when may a court exercise jurisdiction over individuals based on their contacts with a forum on behalf of a corporation?

 

We noted that the Supreme Court had allowed the exercise of specific jurisdiction over employees based on actions they took on behalf of a corporation. See, e.g., Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790 (1984) (“their status as employees does not somehow insulate them from jurisdiction”); Keeton, 465 U.S. at 781 n.13. As a matter of Arizona law, we held that the state’s long-arm statute allowed the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the limits of the federal Constitution, and therefore did not shield corporate officers from jurisdiction over their persons based on actions within the scope of their employment. Davis, 885 F.2d at 522.

 

California’s long-arm statute, like Arizona’s, imposes no limitations on personal jurisdiction beyond those required by due process. See Picot, 780 F.3d at 1211.

 

Although their status as officers of Bachosa does not foreclose personal jurisdiction over Andonie and Jarufe, their status also does not guarantee it. Personal jurisdiction over an individual who acts as an agent of a third party must be assessed on the individual’s actions alone.

 

(…) Our statement in Forsythe that “a corporate officer who has contact with a forum only with regard to the performance of his official duties is not subject to personal jurisdiction in that forum,” Forsythe, 576 F.2d at 783–84, is clearly irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s decisions subjecting corporate employees to suit in exactly those circumstances. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Davis, 885 F.2d at 521 (rejecting the fiduciary shield doctrine based on Calder and Keeton). However, our holding in Forsythe that a personal guaranty of a corporation’s debt may give rise to personal jurisdiction over a corporate officer remains good law.

 

We decide questions of forum non conveniens as a matter of federal law even in cases where state or foreign substantive law governs. Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2000). “To prevail on a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating an adequate alternative forum, and that the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1076 (quoting Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011)). “Forum non conveniens is an exceptional tool to be employed sparingly . . . .” Ravelo Monegro, 211 F.3d at 514. To succeed, a defendant must make “a clear showing of facts which . . . establish such oppression and vexation of a defendant as to be out of proportion to plaintiff’s convenience.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406, 1410 (9th Cir. 1983)).

 

We hold that the balance of private and public interest factors does not favor dismissal. Both sides identify witnesses for whom appearance in their home country would be more convenient. Most of the key documentary evidence, although originally in Spanish, has already been translated into English. The defendants contend that evidence related to Honduran importation permits and the demurrage charges incurred by the Sacramento would be more easily accessible in Honduras. However, evidence related to the negotiations in California would be more easily accessible in California. That some witnesses would prefer to appear in Honduras falls well short of a clear showing of facts which establish such oppression and vexation of a defendant as to be out of proportion to plaintiff’s convenience. Ravelo Monegro, 211 F.3d at 514. Moreover, Global submitted evidence of significant safety concerns with travel to Honduras, particularly for those who travel to the country for the purpose of collecting debt owed by Honduran companies.

 

A plaintiff’s choice of forum—particularly a plaintiff’s “home forum”—is entitled to considerable deference. Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1076 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981)); see also Ravelo Monegro, 211 F.3d at 512 (noting that dismissal for forum non conveniens is typically only appropriate where a plaintiff chooses a forum wholly unrelated to the dispute). This case presents no more than the ordinary burdens any foreign defendant will bear when called to defend an action in the United States against a domestic plaintiff. Those burdens are insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of Global’s choice of its home forum.

 

The panel held that the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant.

 

 

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, August 26, 2020, Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. v. Beneficio De Arroz Choloma, S.A., a Honduran Company, Docket No. 18-16026, For Publication)

Daimler AG v. Bauman, Docket 11-965

Jurisdiction: in California when defendant is from abroad the U.S. Here, plaintiffs (respondents before the Court) are twenty-two residents of Argentina who filed suit in California Federal District Court, naming as a defendant DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler), a German public stock company that is the predecessor to petitioner Daimler AG. Their complaint alleges that Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MB Argenti­na), an Argentinian subsidiary of Daimler, collaborated with state se­curity forces during Argentina’s 1976–1983 “Dirty War” to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain MB Argentina workers, among them, plaintiffs or persons closely related to plaintiffs. Based on those alle­gations, plaintiffs asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, as well as under California and Argentina law. Personal jurisdiction over Daimler was predicat­ed on the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), another Daimler subsidiary, one incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. MBUSA distributes Daim­ler-manufactured vehicles to independent dealerships throughout the United States, including California.

Held: Daimler is not amenable to suit in California for injuries alleged­ly caused by conduct of MB Argentina that took place entirely outside the United States.

California’s long-arm statute allows the exercise of personal ju­risdiction to the full extent permissible under the U. S. Constitution. Thus, the inquiry here is whether the Ninth Circuit’s holding com­ports with the limits imposed by federal due process. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(k)(1)(A).

For a time, this Court held that a tribunal’s jurisdiction over persons was necessarily limited by the geographic bounds of the fo­rum. See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714. That rigidly territorial focus eventually yielded to a less wooden understanding, exemplified by the Court’s pathmarking decision in International Shoe Co. v. Wash­ington, 326 U. S. 310. International Shoe presaged the recognition of two personal jurisdiction categories: one category, today called “spe­cific jurisdiction,” see Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U. S. ___, ___, encompasses cases in which the suit “arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the fo­rum,” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U. S. 408, 414, n. 8. International Shoe distinguished exercises of specific, case-based jurisdiction from a category today known as “general ju­risdiction,” exercisable when a foreign corporation’s “continuous cor­porate operations within a state are so substantial and of such a na­ture as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.” 326 U. S., at 318.

Daimler’s affiliations with California are not sufficient to subject it to the general jurisdiction of that State’s courts; the paradigm all-purpose forums for general jurisdiction are a corpora­tion’s place of incorporation and principal place of business. Good­year, 564 U. S., at ___ ; the proper inquiry, this Court has explained, is whether a foreign corporation’s “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render it essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear, 564 U. S., at ___ ; neither Daimler nor MBUSA is incorporated in California, nor does either entity have its principal place of business there. If Daim­ler’s California activities sufficed to allow adjudication of this Argen­tina-rooted case in California, the same global reach would presuma­bly be available in every other State in which MBUSA’s sales are sizable; no decision of this Court sanctions a view of general juris­diction so grasping. The Ninth Circuit, therefore, had no warrant to conclude that Daimler, even with MBUSA’s contacts attributed to it, was at home in California, and hence subject to suit there on claims by foreign plaintiffs having nothing to do with anything that occurred or had its principal impact in California (U.S.S.Ct., 14.01.2014, Daimler AG v. Bauman, Docket 11-965, J. Ginsburg).

Compétence des cours fédérales dans les cas où le demandeur à l’action fondée sur un acte illicite, le défendeur et le lieu de commission sont situés hors territoire U.S. : dans la présente espèce, les demandeurs ont saisi la cour fédérale de Californie pour actionner Daimler AG, respectivement Mercedes- Benz USA en tant qu’entreprise successeuse de Daimler, sur la base d’allégations de participation à des exactions prétendument commises par les forces de sécurité argentines durant les événements de 1976-1983 : la compétence de la cour de district fédérale en Californie a été (à tort juge la Cour dans la présente espèce) accordée sur la base des points de contact en Californie de Mercedes-Benz USA, société inscrite dans l’état du Delaware, avec son lieu principal d’activité dans l’état du New Jersey.

En l’espèce, la Cour juge que le système judiciaire fédéral doit décliner sa compétence, s’agissant de dommages allégués commis entièrement hors des Etats-Unis par une entreprise étrangère.

Il est rappelé que le « long-arm statute » de Californie confère juridiction sur la personne dans toute l’étendue permise par la Constitution fédérale.  Au-delà de cette limite, le droit à un procès équitable déduit de la Constitution fédérale n’est plus garanti.

En des temps plus anciens, la Cour a jugé que la juridiction sur des personnes était nécessairement limitée par les frontières géographiques du for. Cette attention rigide à la notion de territorialité fut par la suite abandonnée en faveur d’une interprétation plus souple, telle que décrite dans la célèbre jurisprudence International Shoe Co. v. Wash­ington. Furent ainsi reconnues deux catégories de juridiction sur la personne : l’une, aujourd’hui appelée juridiction spécifique, implique des cas où le lieu du procès découle des contacts du défendeur avec le for, ou est en relation avec les contacts du défendeur avec le for, et le litige porte sur les activités qui constituent ces contacts ; l’autre, qualifiée de juridiction générale, permet d’actionner une entreprise étrangère aux U.S. lorsque ses activités à l’intérieur de l’un des états sont continues et substantielles. Dans ce dernier cas, l’entreprise peut être actionnée sur la base de faits sans aucun rapport avec ses activités commerciales.

En l’espèce, les liens de Daimler avec la Californie ne sont pas suffisamment substantiels pour satisfaire aux conditions permettant la reconnaissance d’une juridiction générale. Daimler n’est pas « chez elle » en Californie comme le dit la Cour.

Il faut considérer avant tout qu’une entreprise peut être actionnée pour toutes les raisons possibles en priorité au lieu de son incorporation et au lieu de ses activités principales.  La Cour accorde de l’importance au fait que si la juridiction générale en Californie était reconnue dans cette affaire, elle devrait l’être aussi dans tous les autres états de l’union du fait que Mercedes-Benz vend également ses véhicules dans les autres états. La Cour accorde également de l’importance au fait que cette affaire n’a pas d’impact principal en Californie.