In Daimler AG v. Bauman,134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (No. 11-965), plaintiffs, twenty-two residents of Argentina, sued defendant Daimler, a German corporation, in the Northern District of California, alleging that Daimler’s Argentinean subsidiary had engaged in wrongful conduct in Argentina. Daimler moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling that, under agency principles, the fact that Daimler’s U.S. subsidiary sold Daimler-manufactured vehicles in California was sufficient to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in that forum. The Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the notion that general, as opposed to specific, jurisdiction exists whenever a company engages in a continuous and systematic course of business. Rather, the proper test is whether a company’s affiliations with the forum are “so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State.” The Court ruled that the fact of substantial sales in a State are, alone, insufficient to meet that general jurisdiction test, reasoning that to hold otherwise would result in sweeping and exorbitant exercises of all-purpose jurisdiction that would deprive global companies of “some minimum assurance as to where [their] conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.” Accordingly, even if its U.S. subsidiary’s contacts are imputed to Daimler, there still is no basis to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in California.