Daimler AG v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 8/25/14 Daimler AG v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

DAIMLER AG, C073449

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2009-00041066-CU-PL-GDS) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Respondent;

DAVID PIERSON et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

This opinion will be an exercise in brevity. That is because, while the present writ proceedings have been pending before us, no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court has decided the dispositive jurisdictional issue posed here. In Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. ___ [187 L.Ed.2d 624] (Bauman), the high court concluded that Daimler AG’s (Daimler) affiliations with California are insufficient to

1

subject it to general (all-purpose) personal jurisdiction in California. (Id. at p. ___ [187 L.Ed.2d at pp. 637-639].) Consequently, we shall issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court, which did not have the benefit of Bauman, to vacate its denial order and to enter an order granting Daimler’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.1

This matter involves a product liability claim concerning a 2000 Jeep Cherokee designed, manufactured, and distributed by Chrysler Corporation, a corporation Daimler owned for a time.2 The Cherokee was sold in California to a California plaintiff, who was fatally injured in the vehicle in a California accident.3 According to plaintiff, Daimler concedes that personal jurisdiction over Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) is proper; plaintiff describes MBUSA as Daimler’s subsidiary, national distributor in the United States, and sales arm in California.