Opinion ID: 2975341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Enforcement would violate Indian law

Text: 9 No. 06-2056 Plaintiff additionally urges us not to enforce the Award on the grounds that doing so would violate Indian law, and thus, enforcement runs counter to public policy. It is well-settled that in the interest of international comity, this Court should not enforce an award in a country that would result in the violation of the law of that country. United States v. Ross, 302 F.2d 831, 834 (2d Cir. 1962) (“[N]o court should order the performance of an act in a foreign country when that act will violate the foreign country’s laws.”). This is a recognized public policy concern. Id.; see also, Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1895). Thus, a showing that the enforcement of the Award would violate Indian law may well present a cognizable defense under the Convention. The district court did not decline to overturn the Award because it found the public policy concern to be unpersuasive. As the district court pointed out, the facts indicate that Indian law would actually not be violated by the enforcement of the Award. Indian law would only be violated by the enforcement of the Award in the absence of evidence of the RBI’s consent. Because Defendant submitted uncontroverted evidence that the RBI had provided its consent, the record indicated that Indian law would not be violated by enforcement of the Award. Specifically, Defendant submitted documents proving this consent and the statements of Murali, who testified that such consent had been obtained. Plaintiff responds that the district court improperly admitted the evidence submitted by Defendant that showed the RBI had given its consent to the enforcement of the Award. Plaintiff argued that the documents did not comport with Federal Rules of Evidence 902(3) and 902(12) as they were not properly certified by Indian officials. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Murali’s declarations should have been excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 602 because it was 10 No. 06-2056 never established that Murali had any personal knowledge of the alleged transaction. The district court admitted the documents over Plaintiff’s objections. This Court reviews evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion. Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. Sales Corp., 176 F.3d 921, 927 (6th Cir. 1999). In the present case, Plaintiff fails entirely to cite the district court opinion to argue precisely what is wrong with its reasoning that these documents were admissible. Instead, it addresses this argument by listing the evidence it thought should have been excluded and providing brief discussions of the law concerning the evidentiary rules without applying that law to the facts of this case. In other words, Plaintiff’s argument is devoid of any citations to the record that indicate to this Court what was deficient about the colloquy that took place prior to the admission of the evidence. Finding nothing within the district court’s holding that indicates it abused its discretion in admitting the documents pertaining to the obtaining of the RBI’s consent, we affirm the district court holding. III. Plaintiff’s claims are not frivolous and sanctions are not appropriate A. Analysis “An appeal is frivolous if it is obviously without merit and is prosecuted for delay, harassment, or other improper purposes.” Dallo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we will not declare a claim frivolous merely because it is meritless. Its lack of merit must be obvious and there must be some evidence of an improper purpose in the decision to bring the suit. Here, Defendant alleges no improper purpose and we are not convinced that one exists. Plaintiff certainly zealously pursues its arguments and arguably 11 No. 06-2056 misstates the law and record in some instances, but not much so as to suggest that Plaintiff’s motives were improper. We therefore decline to issue sanctions against Plaintiff. .