In the case in the text Daimler AG v.Bauman,why did the Court conclude the district court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant?
A)The defendant received inadequate service of process under the rules for foreign defendants.
B)The defendant only sold products and services in California but was not incorporated there.
C)The defendant's affiliations with California were not so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home.
D)Based on the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint,the defendant did not harm any citizen in California.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Court held the relevant inquiry under International Shoe and Goodyear is not whether a foreign corporation's in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense "continuous and systematic," it is whether that corporation's "affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State." Here,neither Daimler nor MBUSA is incorporated in California,nor does either entity have its principal place of business there.

In the Case in the Text Daimler AG V