More Uncertainty after Daimler AG v. Bauman: A Response to Professors Cornett and Hoffheimer

12 Pages Posted: 5 Oct 2015 Last revised: 16 Dec 2015

Date Written: October 4, 2015

Abstract

In the lower federal courts, defendants who have litigated cases on the merits without raising lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense are filing motions to dismiss and arguing that they are not subject to general jurisdiction in the forum under Daimler's "at home" standard. The question is whether those defendants have waived their jurisdictional defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 because it was "available" to them in 2011 after the Supreme Court decided Goodyear Dunlop Operations S.A. v. Brown. This article explains the doctrine of waiver under Rule 12 and examines three cases that have addressed waiver under Goodyear and Daimler. This Article then asserts that defendants who failed to argue that they were not "at home" in the forum after Goodyear waived their jurisdictional defense and should not be permitted to raise it under Daimler.

Keywords: civil procedure, personal jurisdiction, Daimler

Suggested Citation

Challener, Deborah J., More Uncertainty after Daimler AG v. Bauman: A Response to Professors Cornett and Hoffheimer (October 4, 2015). Mississippi College School of Law Research Paper No. 2014-04. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2669221 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2669221

Deborah J. Challener (Contact Author)

Mississippi College - School of Law ( email )

151 East Griffith Street
Jackson, MS 39201
United States
601-925-7156 (Phone)
601-925-7113 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.mc.edu/faculty/profile_challener.htm

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
24
Abstract Views
348
PlumX Metrics