L.L.C.

In 2004, twenty-two residents of Argentina filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft, a German public stock company headquartered in Stuttgart that manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany. The complaint alleged that Daimler's Argentinian subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz Argentina, collaborated with state security forces during Argentina's 1976–1983 Dirty War to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill MB Argentina workers, including plaintiffs or persons closely related to them. The complaint asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, and California and Argentina law. Jurisdiction over Daimler was predicated on the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, another Daimler subsidiary incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. MBUSA serves as Daimler's exclusive importer and distributor in the United States, purchasing vehicles from Daimler in Germany and distributing them to independent dealerships throughout the nation, including California. MBUSA maintains a regional office in Costa Mesa, a Vehicle Preparation Center in Carson, and a Classic Center in Irvine. MBUSA's California sales accounted for 2.4 percent of Daimler's worldwide sales. A General Distributor Agreement between Daimler and MBUSA established MBUSA as an independent contractor that buys and sells vehicles for its own account and has no authority to make binding obligations for Daimler. Daimler moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. After allowing jurisdictional discovery on the agency allegations, the District Court granted the motion in November 2005 and reaffirmed the dismissal in February 2007, concluding that Daimler's own contacts with California were too sporadic and that MBUSA's contacts could not be attributed to Daimler. The Ninth Circuit initially affirmed but, on rehearing, reversed in 2011, holding that MBUSA was Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes and that its California contacts supported the exercise of general jurisdiction over Daimler. Daimler petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which the Ninth Circuit denied over the dissent of eight judges. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2013 to decide whether Daimler is amenable to suit in California for claims arising from events occurring entirely outside the United States and unrelated to any activity in California.

In 2002 TransUnion began selling an add-on product called OFAC Name Screen Alert. It compared consumers' first and last names against the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control list of specially designated nationals. Therefore it generated many false positives. In February 2011 Sergio Ramirez sought to buy a car from a Nissan dealership. The dealership ran a credit check revealing an OFAC alert in his TransUnion credit report indicating a potential match. The dealership refused to sell the car to Ramirez, and his wife purchased it in her name instead. Ramirez requested a copy of his credit file. TransUnion sent a first mailing that included his credit file and the required summary of rights but did not mention the OFAC alert. The next day TransUnion sent a second mailing notifying him of the OFAC alert but omitting another copy of the summary of rights. Ramirez consulted a lawyer, canceled a planned trip to Mexico, and TransUnion eventually removed the alert. In February 2012 Ramirez sued TransUnion alleging three violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He sought statutory and punitive damages along with class certification. The parties stipulated that the class included 8,185 members and that only 1,853 of them had their credit reports disseminated by TransUnion to potential creditors during the class period running from January 1, 2011 to July 26, 2011. The District Court ruled that all 8,185 class members had Article III standing. A jury awarded statutory and punitive damages to every class member. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part over Judge McKeown's dissent and reduced the punitive damages.

eBay Inc. operates a popular Internet Web site that allows private sellers to list goods they wish to sell, either through an auction or at a fixed price. Petitioner Half.com, now a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay, operates a similar Web site. Respondent MercExchange, L.L.C., holds several patents, including a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. See U.S. Patent No. 5,845,265. MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, as it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found that MercExchange's patent was valid, that eBay and Half.com had infringed that patent, and that an award of damages was appropriate. eBay and Half.com continue to challenge the validity of MercExchange's patent in proceedings pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Following the jury verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange's motion for permanent injunctive relief, 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances, 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the appropriateness of this general rule, 546 U.S. 1029 (2005).