You are being redirected to the story the piece of content is found in so you can read it in context. Please click the following link if you are not automatically redirected within a couple seconds:
[PDF] Bauman, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, et al. - Opinion
Author: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Published on: 18 May 2011
Plaintiffs-Appellants (the “plaintiffs”), twenty-two Argentinian residents, bring suit against DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft (DCAG) alleging that one of DCAG’s subsidiaries, Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MBA) collaborated with state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill the plaintiffs and/or their relatives during Argentina’s “Dirty War.”…The only question before us is whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over DCAG. The district court granted DCAG’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of such jurisdiction. We conclude, however, that DCAG was subject to personal jurisdiction in California through the contacts of its subsidiary Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA). We hold that MBUSA was DCAG’s agent, at least for personal jurisdictional purposes, and that exercise of personal jurisdiction was reasonable under the circumstances of this case.