-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

Q OIL AND GAS SERVICES LIMITED,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 30, 2014

v No. 317602 Wayne Circuit Court GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS NIGERIA LIMITED, LC No. 12-013251-CZ

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: R IORDAN , P.J., and B ECKERING and B OONSTRA , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Plaintiff, Q Oil and Gas Services Limited, a ppeals as of right the trial court order denying its motion for reconsideration of the order th at granted summary dis position in favor of defendant, General Electric International Operations Nigeria Limited. At issue in this case is the recognition of a Nigerian money judgme nt obtained by default. We affirm.

I. FOREIGN JUDGMENT

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court’s order granting a motion for summary disposition. MEEMIC Ins Co v DTE Energy Co , 292 Mich App 278, 280; 807 NW2d 407 (2011). “Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.” City of Riverview v Sibley Limestone , 270 Mich App 627, 630; 716 NW2d 615 (2006).

B. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erre d in dismissing the action based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant c ontends that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff’s appeal in Nigeria was not final, conclusive, and enforceable.

Even assuming, arguendo , that the trial court did not need personal jurisdiction over defendant in order to proceed in a recognition action, summary disposition is warranted pursuant to MCL 691.1133:-2- (1) Except as otherwise provi ded in subsection (2), this act applies to a foreigncountry judgment to the extent th at both of the following apply:

(a) The judgment grants or deni es recovery of a sum of money.

(b) Under the law of the fo reign country where rendered, the judgment is final, conclusive, and enforceable.

As other courts have recognized in these type s of cases, “foreign countries have different standards governing when a judgment is final.” Manco Contracting Co (WWL) v Bezdikian , 45 Cal 4th 192, 202; 195 P3d 604 (2008). The parties pr ovide scant argument or evidence regarding this issue. In fact, plaintiff does not even mention this issue in its appellate brief. In its response to defendant’s motion for summary disposition, plaintiff offered several unsupported statements that the judgment was final and c onclusive. It cited to two Nigeri an cases for the proposition that an appeal does not automatically warrant a stay in the proceedings. Howe ver, those two cases do not illuminate the issue in this case, namely, th e implications for finality when a conditional stay was granted, the conditions were not met, but defendant pursued an appeal of the stay, and garnishment efforts have been denied.

On appeal, defendant asserts th at it “has appealed from the default judgment of the Nigerian trial court, its appeals remain pending, and the Nigerian courts have stayed execution.” Defendant references an affida vit wherein its Nigerian lawyer , Adedapo Tunde-Olowu, averred that the judgment is “not final, binding and conc lusive under the laws of Nigeria and will not be enforced in any court in Nigeri a until the Defendant’s appeal is finally determined by the Court of Appeal.” Tunde-Olowu detailed the numerous a ttempts plaintiff made in trying to obtain a garnishment in Nigeria, none of which succeeded as plaintiff either withdrew the garnishment action or the court dismissed it.

Plaintiff has failed to identify any dispositive Nigerian law regarding the finality of the judgment in this case. Moreover, it was plainti ff’s burden to prove this threshold requirement. See MCL 691.1133(3) (“[a] party seeking recogniti on of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that this act applies to the foreign-co untry judgment.”). From the record before us, it is impossible to discern whether the judgment at is sue is final, conclusive, and enforceable under Nigerian law. Because it was plaintiff’s burden to prove finality as a threshold requirement of recognitio n, we agree with defe ndant that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff is en titled to recognition of the Nigerian judgment. MCL 691.1133(3). Summary disposition is therefore proper based on this alternative ground. See Jackson Co Hog Producers v Consumers Power Co , 234 Mich App 72, 82; 592 NW2d 112 (1999) (“This Court may affirm a decision of a trial court for reas ons different than those relied on by the trial court.”). 1

II. CONCLUSION

1 While defendant alternatively contends that summary disposition is proper because it was not properly served, we decline to address this i ssue as defendant prevails on alternate grounds.-3- Summary disposition is proper based on plai ntiff’s failure to demonstrate that under Nigerian law, the judgment is final, c onclusive, and enforceable. We affirm.

/s/ Michael J. Riordan /s/ Jane M. Beckering /s/ Mark T. Boonstra