* High court weighs issue separate from ruling last week
* Justices returns Rio Tinto case to lower court for secondlook
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - Once again showing keeninterest in whether multinational corporations can be sued inU.S. courts for alleged human rights abuses abroad, the U.S.Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear Daimler AG's appeal involving its alleged conduct in Argentina in the 1970s.
In a related case, the court asked a lower court on Mondayto take a second look at human rights claims against Rio Tinto .
Both cases were on hold for a major human rights case thatthe court decided last week.
In that unanimous decision, the high court limited theability of human rights plaintiffs to invoke the 1789 Alien TortStatute when suing companies over alleged collusion with violentforeign governments.
In the Daimler case, workers or relatives of workers at anArgentina-based plant operated by Mercedes-Benz, a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Daimler, sued over its alleged conduct.
They claimed the company had punished plant workers viewedby managers as union agitators and that it had worked alongsidethe Argentinian military and police forces.
Both the Daimler and Rio Tinto cases feature Alien TortStatute claims, and both companies are likely to benefit fromlast week's decision. But the Daimler case allows the court toexamine other issues that were left open. Both companies denythe allegations against them.
The court held in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell last week thata federal court in New York could not hear claims made by 12Nigerians who accused Anglo-Dutch oil company Royal Dutch ShellPlc of complicity in a crackdown on protesters inNigeria from 1992 to 1995.
The ruling is expected to make it harder for plaintiffs tobring human rights claims against corporations in U.S. courts ifthe activity took place overseas.
DIFFERENT QUESTION
The legal question in the Daimler case is different. Itfocuses on whether a U.S. court has the authority to hear a caseagainst a foreign corporation "solely on the fact that anindirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of thedefendant" in the state where the federal lawsuit was filed,which in this instance was California.
The plaintiffs said California was a suitable place to filethe lawsuit because Mercedes-Benz USA, an indirect subsidiary ofDaimler, distributes Daimler cars to dealerships in the state.
A federal judge in the Northern District of California saidthe relationship between Daimler and the subsidiary was notsufficient.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsdisagreed, outlining in its decision the ways in which thecompanies worked together on such issues as signage, prices andvehicle servicing standards.
Because the subsidiary's activities "were sufficientlyimportant" to Daimler, and Daimler also had "the right tosubstantially control" the other company's activities, theappeals court concluded that there were "pervasive contacts."
The Rio Tinto case, which involves allegations by humanrights plaintiffs in Papua New Guinea, will now return to thesame appeals court. The judges will revisit the claims in lightof the Supreme Court's guidance.
Arguments and a decision in the Daimler case are due in thecourt's next term, which starts in October and ends in June2014.
The cases are Rio Tinto v. Sarei, U.S. Supreme Court, No.11-649 and Daimler AG v. Bauman, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-965.
