Opinion ID: 987039
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments

Text: Recognition Act In international diversity cases such as this one, “enforceability of judgments of courts of other countries is generally governed by the law of the state in which enforcement is sought.” Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1212 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (per curiam) (“Yahoo! II”) (plurality opinion) (citing Bank of Montreal v. Kough, 612 F.2d 467, 469–70 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also id. at 1239–41 (Fisher, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In California, the Uniform Act regulates enforcement of the Japanese damages award at issue here. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1713–1724. The present California foreign judgment enforcement statute was enacted in 2007 to replace the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, formerly codified at California Civil Procedure Code sections 1713–1713.8, and applies to all recognition and enforcement actions commenced on or after January 1, 2008. See § 1724(a); see also Manco Contracting Co. (W.W.L.) v. Bezdikian, 45 Cal.4th 192, 204 (2008). California’s Act was modeled on the 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, 13 U.L.A. pt. II, at 18–38 (Supp. 2011), drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.8 See Manco Contracting Co., 45 Cal. 8 As of June 2013, nineteen states have enacted the 2005 version of the Uniform Act, or some version thereof, and an additional three states have introduced bills proposing its enactment. See Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, Uniform Law Commission, The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (last visited May 25, 2013). T he earlier version of the 12 OHNO V . YASUMA 4th at 198 (describing the background and purpose of the Uniform Act); Lyustiger v. Lysustiger (In re Marriage of Lyustiger), 177 Cal. App. 4th 1367, 1369–70 (2009) (recounting the history of the Act in California). California’s Uniform Act provides that the courts of California “shall recognize a foreign-country judgment” for money damages that is final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered, except if one or more of the mandatory grounds for non-recognition enumerated in § 1716(b), or discretionary grounds for non-recognition enumerated in § 1716(c), applies.9 § 1716(a). The only exception at issue Uniform Act, approved in 1962, was adopted by twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. See Cedric C. Chao & Christine S. Neuhoff, Enforcement and Recognition of Foreign Judgments in United States Courts: A Practical Perspective, 29 Pepp. L. Rev. 147, 150 (2001). The state law versions of the Uniform Act do not vary substantially from state to state. The more significant distinction lies between those states that have adopted some version of the Uniform Act and those that follow a common law standard stemming from the Supreme Court’s decision in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). See Chao & Neuhoff, 29 Pepp. L. Rev. at 148. 9 Section 1716(b) provides in full: A court of this state shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply: (1) The judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law. (2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1716(b). OHNO V . YASUMA 13 in this appeal is § 1716(c)(3), which provides that a court is “not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment if . . . [t]he judgment or the cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of [California] or of the United States.” § 1716(c)(3). Under the Uniform Act, the party seeking enforcement of a foreign judgment bears the initial burden of establishing that the judgment falls within the scope of the Act. § 1715(c). The parties here do not dispute that the Japanese judgment conforms to the threshold requirements for recognition: it grants recovery of a sum of money, as required by § 1715(a)(1); it is final, conclusive and enforceable in Japan, under § 1715(a)(2); and it is not a judgment for taxes, a fine or other penalty, or a judgment in connection with domestic relations, barred from recognition under § 1715(b). Once coverage under the Uniform Act is established, the presumption in favor of enforcement applies, and the party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment “has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subdivision [§ 1716](b) or (c) exists.” § 1716(d); see also Section 1716(c) provides that a court is “not required to recognize a foreign-country [money] judgment if” any of the following nine discretionary grounds for non-recognition exists: (1) lack of notice to the defendant; (2) fraud; (3) repugnancy of the foreign judgment or cause of action to public policy; (4) conflict with another final and conclusive judgment; (5) contrariness to an agreement between the parties regarding the resolution of disputes; (6) inconvenience of the foreign forum; (7) doubts about the integrity of the rendering court; (8) incompatibility of the judgment with the requirements of due process of law; and (9) a recovery under defamation law that provides less protection for freedom of speech and the press than is provided under the U.S. and California Constitutions. Id. 14 OHNO V . YASUMA Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, 13 U.L.A. pt. II, at 19 (Supp. 2011) (Prefatory Note). The repugnancy ground for non-recognition of foreign judgments is therefore an affirmative defense. See § 1716(d). This statutorily specified burden applies equally where, as here, the ground of repugnancy is an asserted violation of federal constitutional norms. See, e.g., Sarl Louis Feraud Int’l v. Viewfinder, Inc., 489 F.3d 474, 477–78 (2d Cir. 2007). Thus, the Church has the burden of establishing the grounds it has raised for non-recognition of the judgment.