When the Supreme Court decided Daimler v. Bauman1 two years ago, it effectively re-wrote the rules on personal jurisdiction, abandoning—as Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in her concurring opinion—”the ‘continuous and systematic’ contacts inquiry that has been taught to generations of first-year law students[.]“2 Daimler announced a new rule, providing that only in “an exceptional case” could a corporation’s operations in a state “be so substantial and of such a nature” as to subject it to general jurisdiction other than where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.3
That ruling threw into doubt New York’s longstanding test providing for general jurisdiction over corporations “doing business” in New York, and the decades of jurisprudence applying and refining that rule in light of New York’s place in the center of a global economy. This article discusses a number of recent decisions from district judges in the Southern District of New York that illustrate the sea change wrought by Daimler on New York’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence.
‘Daimler’
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
