Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.


Complete 5 page APA formatted essay: Bauman decision.They, plaintiffs, accuse Mercedes-Benz Argentina for brutally punishing plant workers, with the collaboration of the Argentinean military and polic

Complete 5 page APA formatted essay: Bauman decision.

They, plaintiffs, accuse Mercedes-Benz Argentina for brutally punishing plant workers, with the collaboration of the Argentinean military and police forces, whom the Mercedes-Benz Argentina viewed as union agitators. Plaintiffs claim that Mercedes-Benz Argentina had knowledge that the collaboration between the Mercedes-Benz Argentina and the state forces would result in kidnapping, torture, detention and murder of the workers, and that the plan was implemented in a certain manner. The manner is as follows. first, Mercedes-Benz Argentina labelled the appellants as “subversives” and “agitators” and this information they passed on to the state forces. Second, MBA had members of the military and state forces stationed within the Gonzalez-Catan plant. Third, MBA opened the plant to raids by the forces. Fourth MBA hired Ruben Lavallen, who is the police station chief and been behind much of the reign terror and installed him the chief of scrutiny, providing legal representation yet he was accused of human rights abuse. They also allege that MBA seemed to be pleased with the results of the raids and detentions since these actions helped in ending the strike and restoring maximum production at the plant. Plaintiffs brought a suit against DCAG in 2004 in the District court for the northern district of California under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). After a failed attempt to serve process at Stuttgart, Germany one of DCAG’s headquarters, they learned that DCAG purported to maintain an operational headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan after which they then attempted to serve DCAG in Michigan, Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG.DCAG moved to quash service and to dismiss the case since it lacked personal jurisdiction. In DCAG’s proxy statement submitted by the plaintiffs stated that since Daimler-Benz and Chrysler merged, DCAG maintained two operational headquarters, one in Michigan and the one at the current Daimler-Benz headquarters, Stuttgart. Co-Chairmen and Co-Chief Executive Officers of DCAG, Jurgen E. Schrempp, the former Chairman of Daimler Benz, and Robert J. Eaton, the former Chairman and CEO of Chrysler Corporation, both had offices and staff in Michigan and Stuttgart. Following the submission of this evidence, DCAG withdrew its motion to quash service after the respondents produced documents showing that the Michigan and Stuttgart were dual operational quarters. The service was authorized by a German trial court but was stayed by a German appellate so it could determine whether the process would infringe on Germany’s sovereignty. The defendants objected to these two documents and termed them as unauthenticated hearsay, but the district court dismissed the objection. The court also refused to further examine some of the plaintiffs’ evidence including the percentage of the DCAG’s worldwide sales that occurred through MBUSA in California and the overlap between the personnel of DCAG and MBUSA, since the court found the evidence irrelevant to whether MBUSA was an agent of DCAG and this was beyond the scope of supplemental briefing. The court ruled on DCAG’

Show more
Ask a Question