There are also likely to be amicus briefs filed in the case, since the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others, backed the railroad’s petition for certiorari. The employees’ lawyers at the Public Citizen Litigation Group haven’t yet responded. 27 merits brief that the Montana Supreme Court misinterpreted Daimler and violated the company’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The railroad, represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, said in its Feb. (It also said Daimler applied only to corporations based outside of the U.S.) Montana decided it had jurisdiction because BNSF was doing business in Montana under the Federal Employers Liability Act. But last May, the Montana Supreme Court carved out an exception to Daimler’s restrictions in the Tyrrell case, which involves workplace injury claims by two out-of-state employees of BNSF Railway, which is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Texas. Since Daimler, federal circuits have broadly held that courts do not have general jurisdiction against corporations just because companies do substantial business in their states. (The court left a bit of wiggle room in Daimler for “exceptional” cases, although its example was truly exceptional: Ohio was deemed in a 1952 Supreme Court decision to have jurisdiction over a Philippines-based company because war drove the company temporarily to base operations in Ohio.) Brown, mostly restricted general jurisdiction for out-of-state plaintiffs to states in which the defendant’s business is incorporated or headquartered.
Bauman, building on the court’s 2011 ruling in Goodyear v. As you probably recall, the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler v. Tyrrell, the latest in a recent string of cases to consider general jurisdiction for suits against multistate and multinational corporations. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in BNSF Railway v.
0 kommentar(er)
