2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-1-2010 

# O t o s T ech C o Lt d v

. O GK Ame r Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3364

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ot os T e ch C o Lt d v

. O GK Ame r Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 651. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/651H onor abl e J . W i l l i am D i t t er , J r . , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe * E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .4 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 09- 3364

____________ OT OS T E CH CO . , L T D.

v. O G K A M E R IC A , IN C .; Y A L E K IM , a/k /a Y o u n g il K im v. OT OS OP T I CA L CO . , L T D; M OON YO UNG HU H

Ot o s T e c h Co . , L T D; Ot o s Op t i c a l Co . , L T D; M oon Y oung H uh, A p p e llan ts

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 2- 03- cv- 01979) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam H . W a lls

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 15, 2010 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI TT ER, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: Sept ember1, 2010)2 ____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ D IT T E R , D is tr i ct

Judge . O t o s T e c h C o . , L t d . , O t o s O p t i c a l C o . , L t d . , a n d M o o n Y o u n g H u h ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, “O t os ”) appea l t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng a turnoverof funds t o O G K A m er i ca, I nc. and Y al e K i m ( col l ect i vel y , “O G K ”) t o s at i s fya j udgm enti n O G K ’ s favorand d e n y in g O to s a n yse to f

f f o r a ju d g m e n t in O to s’ f a v o r. T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t a se to f f b a se d o n O to s’ ju d g m e n t w a s in a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se O to s h a d o b tain e d a d u p lica te j udgm enti n t he R epubl i c of South K or ea w hi ch made doubl e r ecove r ypos s i bl e. F o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. T hi s act i on ar os e fr om a bus i nes s di s put e betw een O G K and O t os . Pur s uantt o an o ra l ag re e m e n t, O G K h a d a c ted a s O to s’ e x c lu siv e a g e n t f o r th e sa le o f

w e ld in g h e lm e ts i n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n e x c h a n g e f o rc o mm i s s i o n p a yme n t s . Cl a i mi n g th a tOGK w r ongful l yw i t hhel d fr om O t os s ever al chec ks fr om cus t om er s w or t h $587, 775, O t osT h e e m b e z z l e m e n tc l a i m d i d n o tp r o c e e d t o th e j u r y. 1 “SK $” r efe r s t o Sout h K or ean w on. T he part i es appea rt o agr ee thatthi s amount 2 w as in tend ed to co v er c h ec k s retaine d b yO G K totali n g $ 5 8 7 , 7 5 5 . T h e K o rea n co u rt n o te s th a t th e a c tu a l a m o u n t o f th e c h e c k s w a s $ 5 8 7 ,1 3 5 . (J .A . 5 0 7 .)

3 fil ed this acti o n ag ains t O G K fo r bre ac h o f c o n tr ac t, co n v ersion , an d em b ez zlem en t. In 1 r es pons e, O G K fi l ed an a ns w erand as s ert ed count er cl ai m s and a thi r d par t ycompl ai ntfor br eac h of contr act , br eac h of s et t l ementagr eement , and br eac h of the i m pl i ed cove nantof g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ir d e a lin g . O G K c o n ten d e d th a t O to s w ro n g f u llyter m in a ted th e ir a g re e m e n t an d th a t ith a d re tain e d th e c h e c k s a s p a rt o f a se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t. B efor e a de ci s i on w as r eac hed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , O t os br oughtan ac t i on i n the R epu bli c of K orea seeki ng t o freeze K i m ’s asset s based o n h i s conv ers i on of the check s, and K i m count er cl ai m ed bas ed on the s ett l ementagr eement . T he K or ean c our tent er ed j udgm enti n favorof O t os on bot h i s s ues , and aw ar ded O t os SK $607, 156, 665 pl us 2 i nt er es t . O G K appea l ed the K or ean j udgm entbutbefor e the appe al w as deci ded, O t os fi l ed a mot i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o enfor ce i t . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed O t os ’ m ot i on, fi ndi ng i tcoul d notenfor ce a j udgm enti n a for ei gn j ur i s di ct i on thatw as s t i l l under a p p e a l. ( J .A . 1 3 5 -3 6 , 2 4 9 .) T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed O G K ’ s cl ai m on t he s et t l ementagr eement , and the par t i es pr ocee ded t o t r i al on t he r emai ni ng cl ai m s . T he j uryr eturned a ve r di ct , fi ndi ng t hat( 1) O G K w as l i abl e forbr eac h of contr act , butther e w er e no damages fr om the b re a c h , (2 ) O G K w ro n g f u llyc o n v e rte d th e c h e c k s f o r w h ich O to s w a s e n tit led to4

$587, 755, and ( 3) O t os br eac hed the i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i t h and fa i rdeal i ng for w hi ch O G K w as ent i t l ed t o $910, 000. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed O t os ’ m ot i on fora new tr ial , O tos a p p ea led, an d O G K cro ss-ap p ea led. T h is C o u rtaf firm ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s or derdeny i ng O t os a new t r i al and r emanded the mat t erforan aw ar d of pos t - j udgm ent i nter estt o O G K on $3 22 , 24 5, t he d i fference b et w een O G K ’s j ud gm ent and t hat of O t os. O G K th e n f

iled a m o tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt f o r a n o rd e r re q u irin g M ill e r E lec tric M fg. C o. , one of O t os ’ cus t om er s , t o turnovert o O G K $910, 000 pl us i nt er es tt o s at i s fy O G K ’ s j udgm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed O G K ’ s turnoverm ot i on and deni ed O t os anys et off ba s ed on O t os ’ j udgm entexpl ai ni ng that“a doubl e r ecove r yfor[O t os ] m ay r es ul ts i nce [ O t os ] coul d al s o r ecove rthe K or ean j udgm entent i r el y . ” ( J . A . 22. ) T he par t i es di s put ed w hetherO G K had made, and O t os had r ece i ved, paym ent s thr ough t he K or ean c our ti n connec t i on w i t h t he K or ean j udgm ent . O G K ar gued thati thad s at i s fi ed t he K or ean j udgm entt hr ough t he s al e of K i m ’ s apartm entand bydepos i t i ng funds i n the K or ean c our t . ( J . A . 155- 56. ) O t os ar gued thati thad notr ece i ved anyfunds ot herthan t hos e r ece i ved fr om t he s al e of K i m ’ s apart m entand that , even i f thos e funds had bee n depos i t ed, t heyw er e w or t h s ubs t ant i al l yl es s than O t os ’ A m er i can j udgm entbeca us e of f lu c tu a tio n s in th e e x c h a n g e ra te . (J .A . 4 6 -4 9 .) T he K or ean j udgm ent , on appea l , w as r educe d t o SK $544, 920, 318 bythe Seoul Hi g h Co u r t , a n d j u s td a y s a f t e rOGK f

i l e d i t s mo t i o n f

o rtu r n o v e ro f

f u n d s , th e S u p r e me C o u rt o f K o re a a f

f irm e d th a t ju d g m e n t. (J.A . 5 9 .) T h a t am o u n t, w h ich w a s in ten d e d to5

coverO t os ’ l os s es on t he che cks r et ai ned byO G K , appea r s t o be the equi val entof $ 5 8 7 ,1 3 5 u n d e r t h e p re v a ilin g e x c h a n g e ra te a t th e tim e o f ju d g m e n t. ( J .A . 5 9 , 1 5 5 .) I n expl ai ni ng i t s tur nover - s et off de ci s i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatthe K or ean j udgm entw as now fi nal and O t os had the opt i on “t o enfor ce the K or ean j udgm enti n a s epar at e mot i on [al l ow i ng] t he part i es t o pr oper l ybr i ef the i s s ue of w hetherthe K or ean j udgm enthas i n fac tbeen s at i s fi ed. ” ( J . A . 22. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that

“ [ a ] l l o wi n g OGK t o r e c o v e rt h e f u l l j u d g me n tg r a n t e d b yth i s Co u r ta n d a tth e s a me t i me p e rm itt in g O to s to se e k to e n f o rc e th e K o re a n ju d g m e n t in a se p a ra te p ro c e e d in g p ro tec ts agai ns tdoubl e r ecove r yw i t houtfor ecl os i ng [O t os ’ ] abi l i t yt o enfor ce i t s for ei gn ju d g m e n t.” (J .A . 2 2 .) II. W hethert her e s houl d be a s et off w as a mat t erof j udi ci al di s cr et i on forthe D i s tr i ct C our t . O t os appea l s cont endi ng t hatw hen the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed O G K ’ s turnover m ot i on and deni ed O t os anys et off, i tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on as s how n bythr ee f ai l ur es on i t s par t : ( 1) t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have i nvoked the doctr i ne of j udi ci al es t oppel and t hen, havi ng done s o, s houl d nothave c ons i der ed the K or ean j udgm ent ; ( 2) the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on confl i ct ed w i t h t hi s C our t ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng O t os ’ A m er i can j udgm ent ; and ( 3) t he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o cons i derthatdue t o t he fl uctuat i ng r at e of excha nge, O t os ’ K or ean j udgm entw as w or t h s ubs t ant i al l yl es s than i t s A m er i can ju d g m e n t.6

N one of thes e i s s ues w er e di s cus s ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , and none of them per s uade us t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as w r ong. III . W e r evi ew a cha l l enge t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on w hethert o gr anta s et off b e tw e e n ju d g m e n ts f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . N

o rth C h ica g o R o lli n gMill C o . v. S t. L o u is O r e and St eel

C o. , 152 U . S. 596, 615 ( 1894) ( “[C]ount er - cl ai m s . . . m aybe enf or ced by w ayof s et - off w heneve rt he ci r cumst ance s ar e s uch as t o w arr antthe i nt er fer ence of e q u ityto p re v e n t w ro n g a n d in ju stic e .”). W e a lso re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s f a ilu re to in v o k e th e d o c tr in e o f

ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l f

o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Montr os e Medi cal G r oup P ar t i ci

pat i ng Savi ngs P l an v. B ul ger , 243 F. 3d 773, 780 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W hether a dec i s i on of the D i s t r i ctC our tconfl i ct s w i t h t he l aw of the ca s e i s a l egal det erm i nat i on s u b je c t to p le n a ry re v ie w . C oca- C ol a B ot t l i ng C o. of Shr eve por t , I nc. v. C oca- C ola C o. , 9 8 8 F .2 d 4 1 4 , 4 2 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). If th e re is a c o n f

lict, th e D istric t C o u rt’s a c tio n is re v ie w e d f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . I

d. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad di ver s i t yj ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1332( a) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I V. A . D octr i ne of J udi ci al E s t oppel Ot o s a r g u e s t h a tb e c a u s e OGK h a d t a k e n a p r i o ri n c o n s i s t e n tp o s i t i o n , OGK s houl d have be en j udi ci al l yes t opped fr om as s ert i ng i n i t s turnoverm ot i on i t s purpor t ed7

s at i s fac t i on of the K or ean j udgm entand, ther efor e, the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d nothave c o n s id e re d th e K o re a n ju d g m e n t w h e n it g ra n te d th e m o tio n a n d d e n ie d O to s a n ys e to f f. O to s s a y s th a t O G K , in its o p p o sitio n to O to s’ m o tio n to e n f o rc e th e K o re a n ju d g m e n t, fi r s tas s er t ed thatnei t hert he i s s ues norpr ocee di ngs i n t he K or ean l i t i gat i on w er e i dent i cal t o t he l i t i gat i on i n t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . O t os ar gues thati n O G K ’ s turnover m ot i on, O G K t hen as s er t ed an i ncons i s t entpos i t i on – thatthe K or ean j udgm entw as

“ d u p lica tiv e ” a n d “ id e n tica l” to th e lit ig a tio n b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt. T he doctr i ne of j udi ci al es t oppel “s eeks t o pr eventa l i t i gantfr om as s ert i ng a pos i t i on i ncons i s t entw i t h one thats he has pr evi ous l yas s ert ed i n t he s ame ori n a pr evi ous pr ocee di ng. ” Ryan O

per at i ons G . P . v. Sant i am - Mi dw es tLum berC o. , 81 F. 3d 355, 358 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . “I n ourC i r cui tj udi ci al es t oppel i s gener al l ynotappr opr i at e w her e the defe ndi ng par t ydi d notconvi nce the D i s t r i ctC our tt o acc epti t s ear l i erpos i t i on. ” G . I. H oldi ngs , I

nc. v. R el i ance I

ns . C o. , 58 6 F . 3d 24 7, 26 2 (3d C i r. 20 09 ). “‘A bsent s uccess i n a pr i orpr ocee di ng, a part y ’ s l at eri ncons i s t entpos i t i on i ntr oduces no r i s k of i ncons i s t entcour tdet erm i nat i ons , and thus pos es l i t t l e thr eatt o j udi ci al i nt egr i t y ’ ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . P e lu llo , 399 F. 3d 197, 223 ( 3r d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng N ew H am ps hi r e v. Mai ne , 5 3 2 U . S . 7 4 2 , 7 5 0 -51 (20 0 1 )). H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tneveracc ept ed O G K ’ s ear l i erpos i t i on thatthe K or ean l i t i gat i on di ffe r ed fr om t he l i t i gat i on i n t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . I ns t ead, the D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed O t os ’ m ot i on beca us e i tfound thatO t os s houl d notbe al l ow ed t o enfor ce aT he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed O t os ’ m ot i on t o enfor ce the K or ean j udgm ent“[f ] ort he 3 r eas ons expl i cat ed ator al ar gum ent . ” ( J . A . 249. ) D ur i ng or al ar gum ent , the D i s t r i ct C our tj udge expl ai ned t o O t os ’ couns el : “That[j udgm ent ] i s nota fi nal j udgm ent . I t hi nk y ou ar e w as t i ng y ourt i m e pr ocedur al l y . I am not s ay i ng eventual l yy ou m aynothave a r i ghtt o come and m ake s uch a mot i on. B uti f y ou ar e t al ki ng abouta j udgm entthati s on appea l , I w oul d be fool i s h j udi ci al l yand per s onal l yfool i s h t o gr anty ou y ourm ot i on. T he m o tio n is d e n ie d .” (J .A . 1 3 5 -3 6 .) I tal s o appea r s t hatO G K neveradopt ed i ncons i s t entpos i t i ons r egar di ng the 4 K o re a n ju d g m e n t. O G K n e v e r re p re se n ted to th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e c laim s in b o th cour t s w er e i dent i cal ; r ather , O G K fi r s tar gued thatthe cl ai m s w er e di ffe r entand l at er ar gued thatt he damages ul t i m at el yaw ar ded t o O t os w er e the s ame. 8 for ei gn j udgm entt hatw as s t i l l underappea l and ther efor e notfi nal . Si nce O G K di d not 3 convi nce the D i s t r i ctC our tt o acc epti t s ear l i erpos i t i on, i t s l at erpos i t i on – thatthe K o rea n jud g m en t w as “ iden ti ca l” – in tr o d u ce d n o ri sk o f in co n sist en t cou rt det erm i nat i ons . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d have e rr ed had i tappl i ed the 4 d o c trin e o f

ju d icia l es to p p e l. B . L aw of the C as e D octr i ne O t os cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on on O G K ’ s m ot i on forturnoverof funds confl i ct ed w i t h t hi s C our t ’ s pr i ordeci s i on aff i r m i ng the or derdeny i ng a new tr i al a n d re m a n d in g th e m a tter f o r th e a w a rd o f

p o st-ju d g m e n t in ter e st.

“ L a w o f th e c a se ru les h a v e d e v e lo p e d ‘to m a in tain c o n sis ten c ya n d a v o id r econs i der at i on of m at t er s once de ci ded dur i ng the cour s e of a s i ngl e cont i nui ng l aw s ui t . ’ ” C a se

y v . P la n n e d

P a re n th o o d

o f So u th e a ste rn P e n n sy lva n ia , 14 F. 3d 848, 856 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . “[A ] n i nfer i orcour thas no pow erorauthor i t yt o devi at e fr om the m andat e i s s ued byan appe l l at e court . ” I d. “The doctr i ne i s des i gned t o pr ot ectA tt he t i m e of thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der , the 5 K or ean j udgm entw as nota fi nal j udgm ent . T he Supr eme C our tof K or ea a ffi r m ed i ton D ece m ber24, 2008, overt w o m ont hs aft erthi s C our t ’ s deci s i on. 9 t r adi t i onal i deal s s uch as fi nal i t y , j udi ci al economyand j ur i s prudent i al i nt egr i t y . ” In re C i t y of P hi l a. Li t ig. , 1 5 8 F . 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 7 -18 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T her e i s no l aw of the ca s e vi ol at i on her e. I n ourpr i ordeci s i on, w e af fi r m ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o gr antO t os a new t r i al and as a cons equenc e, aff i r m ed the j udgm ent s forboth par t i es . W e al s o r emanded t h e c a s e f

o ra n a w a r d o f

i n t e r e s tb a s e d o n th e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n th o s e j u d g m e n t s . We di d notaddr es s t he K or ean j udgm entnorthe i s s ue of doubl e r ecove r y . ( J . A . 241. ) T he 5 D is tr ic t C o u rt g ra n te d a tu rn o v e r o f f u n d s b a s e d o n O G K ’s A m e ri c a n ju d g m e n t, a j udgm entw hi ch w e had a ffi r m ed, and deni ed anys et off f orO t os ’ A m er i can j udgm ent b e c a u s e o f

t h e p o s s i b i l i t yo f

Ot o s ’ o b t a i n i n g d o u b l e r e c o v e r y , a n i s s u e wh i c h we expl i ci t l yhad notaddr es s ed. A ccor di ngl y , nothi ng i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on on O G K ’ s tur noverm ot i on confl i ct s w i t h t he l aw of the ca s e. C . F lu c tu a tio n s in th e E x c h a n g e R a te F in a lly , O to s a rg u e s th a t it s K o re a n ju d g m e n t w a s w o rth su b sta n tiallyles s th a n its A m er i can j udgm entdue t o fl uctuat i ng excha nge r at es , and thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng O t os a part i al s et off ba s ed on the deva l uat i on of the K or ean w on. T hi s i s an ar gum entt hats i m pl ym akes no s ens e.O t os ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tm i s under s t ood t he i s s ue bygi vi ng i tthe opt i on 6 to e n f o rc e th e K o re a n ju d g m e n t. O to s s a y s it w a n ts to e n f o rc e its A m e ric a n ju d g m e n t, n o t th e K o re a n ju d g m e n t, be c a u se th e K o re a n ju d g m e n t is w o rth su b sta n tiallyles s d u e to th e d e v a lu a tio n o f

th e K o re a n w o n . W e f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s w ith in its di s cr et i on t o denyO t os a s et off ba s ed on the pos s i bi l i t yof a doubl e r ecove r y . H ow the D i s t r i c tC o u r tt e s t s t h e m e r i t s o f t h e p a r t i e s ’ c l a i m s i n o r d e rt o a v o i d a d o u b l e r e c o v e r y – w h e th e r it b e b yO to s’ m o tio n to e n f o rc e th e K o re a n ju d g m e n t, by O G K ’s m o tio n to decl ar e O t os ’ A m er i can j udgm ents at i s fi ed, orbys om e otherm eans – has noty etbeen e s t a b l i s h e d o n t h e r e c o r d a n d t h e r e f o r e i s n o tr i p e f

o ro u rr e v i e w. 10 W hen the ques t i on fort hi s C our ti s w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on in d e n y in g a se to f

f , the u n c e rta in ties o f

a n u n c e rta in f

o re ig n ju d g m e n t ar e a s f o re ig n to t he i s s ue as t he W es ti s t o t he East . T he part i es di s put e w hetherO G K has even made, and O t os has even r ece i ved, paym ent s t hr ough t he K or ean c ourti n connec t i on w i t h t he K o re a n ju d g m e n t. F u rth e rm o re , ith a s n o t b e e n e sta b lish e d o n th e re c o rd w h e n , w h e re , to w hom , ori n w hatamount t he paym ent s on t he K or ean j udgm enthave be en made. I n i t s or deron t he tur noverm ot i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notaddr es s w hethert he K or ean j udgm enthad bee n s at i s fi ed ( and ther efor e di d notcons i derthe deva l uat i on of the K or ean w on) , buti ns t ead not ed thatO t os had the opt i on t o enfor ce the K or ean j udgm ent bys epar at e mot i on, s o t hatt hes e i s s ues coul d be br i efe d and the mer i t s t es t ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deci di ng t o pr ocee d i n t hi s w ay . W e agr ee t h a t“ [ a ] l l o wi n g OGK t o r e c o v e rt h e f u l l j u d g me n tg r a n t e d b yth i s Co u r ta n d a tth e s a me t i m e perm i t t i ng O t os t o s eek t o enfor ce the K or ean j udgm enti n a s epar at e pr ocee di ng pr ot ect s agai ns tdoubl e r ecove r yw i thoutfor ecl os i ng [O t os ’ ] abi l i t yt o enfor ce i t s for ei gn ju d g m e n t.” (J .A . 2 2 .)

611 V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng the tur noverof funds t o O G K and deny i ng O t os anys et off.