Opinion ID: 987039
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Enforcement Action in Federal Court

Text: Ohno next brought an international diversity action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking enforcement of the Japanese judgment against Yasuma and Saints of Glory under California’s Uniform Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1713–1724. In opposition to Ohno’s motion for summary judgment, the Church argued that the Religion Clauses bar recovery in tort for the consequences of protected religious speech, including threats of divine retribution, and prohibit a court from judging the validity of the Church’s religious teachings. The Japanese judgment, the Church argued, was inconsistent with these principles. The Church further asserted that the Japanese judgment is not entitled to recognition, both because it is “repugnant” to public policy embodied in the Religion Clauses and because it “was obtained through procedures not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” In the alternative, the Church requested that the motion for summary judgment be continued to permit additional discovery relating to the Japanese proceedings. 10 OHNO V . YASUMA The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ohno and entered judgment jointly and severally against Yasuma and Saints of Glory, holding the Japanese judgment not repugnant to the Religion Clauses.6 It also denied the Church’s request for a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f),7 citing the failure to identify with any specificity the facts sought through additional discovery and why the evidence to be obtained would preclude summary judgment. This timely appeal followed. On appeal, the Church contends that the district court was both constitutionally and statutorily required to refuse recognition of the Japanese judgment because the judgment burdens free exercise of religion in violation of the Religion Clauses. As to the constitutional issue, the Church maintains that enforcement in the United States of a foreign-country judgment that would be violative of the Religion Clauses if issued by a domestic court is itself an exercise of state power, directly subject to constitutional constraints. Statutorily, the Church argues that a foreign-country judgment that impinges on American constitutional rights is necessarily repugnant to public policy, making its recognition under California’s Uniform Act an abuse of discretion. 6 The district court also held that the Japanese judgment was not incompatible with due process of law, but the Church has abandoned its due process arguments on appeal. 7 Former Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became Rule 56(d) under the 2010 Amendments to the Federal Rules. Because the district court decision, the Church’s briefs to this court, and the relevant case law in this circuit all refer to the former Rule 56(f), this opinion as well so refers to the rule currently codified as Rule 56(d). OHNO V . YASUMA 11