Opinion ID: 6319813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Maria Corso is a resident of South Australia, a State in the Commonwealth of Australia. Rejuvi is a California corporation that produces and sells cosmetic products, including a tattoo removal paste. Rejuvi operates a facility in South San Francisco, employs 6 to 9 people, and generates an annual revenue of about $1.4 million. Rejuvi sells its products in the international market through a network of distributors. In July 2006, Rejuvi entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with Arias Holdings, located in the State of Queensland, Australia. Arias Holdings handled the sale of Rejuvi products in all of Australia, either directly or through subcontracts with others. From 2006 to 2009, Rejuvi made sales in Australia totaling $97,196.80, including $6,560 of tattoo removal products. Rejuvi’s CEO, Wei Cheng, made two sales trips to Australia. Between November 24 and 30, 2006, he was in Brisbane, in Queensland, and Sydney, in the State of New South Wales. Between August 10 and 23, 2007, he was in Sydney, and in Melbourne, in the State of Victoria. Arias Holdings organized “seminars” on these sales trips, at which Cheng gave lectures about Rejuvi products, and Tammy Nguyen, a “master trainer” employed by Rejuvi, demonstrated the use of Rejuvi’s tattoo removal paste. Corso had tattoos on her right ankle and on her back. In September 2007, Corso spoke about removing her tattoos with Michelle Babich, a co-owner of Platinum Beauty, a business in South Australia. Babich had attended one of Cheng’s seminars in Sydney, and she told Corso that she had experience applying Rejuvi’s tattoo removal paste. Corso IN RE REJUVI LABORATORY 5 subsequently underwent a tattoo removal procedure using Rejuvi’s paste and was severely injured. In September 2009, Corso sued Rejuvi, Arias Holdings, and Michelle and Branko Babich (co-owners of Platinum Beauty) in the district court of South Australia. Australia has a federal system that is similar to ours in that each Australian state has a constitution and judiciary. The district court is the principal trial court in South Australia. Rejuvi did not respond to Corso’s suit. On May 6, 2010, Corso applied for default judgment against Rejuvi. The next day, the registrar of the South Australian district court granted a default judgment because Rejuvi had filed no defense. In a letter sent on June 7, 2013, the district court informed Rejuvi that it had set a trial date for “assessment of damages.” According to the evidence credited by the South Australian district court at the assessment of damages, the treatment Corso received on her tattoos caused chemical burns, resulting in scars whose treatment required five surgeries. Despite the surgeries, Corso still had scars on her ankle and back. The tattoo treatment also caused a tumor to form on Corso’s left kidney. Corso suffered from chronic pain, nerve damage, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. In June 2016, the district court entered judgment against Rejuvi for AU$1,020,508.55, exclusive of interest, costs, and “consequential orders.” In October 2016, Corso filed suit in federal district court for the Northern District of California, seeking enforcement of her Australian judgment. Rejuvi answered, contending that the South Australian district court lacked personal 6 IN RE REJUVI LABORATORY jurisdiction over it. Rejuvi later opposed Corso’s motion for summary judgment on a different ground, contending that the Australian default judgment was not final and noting that Rejuvi had retained Australian counsel to file an application to set aside the judgment. The federal district court suspended proceedings to allow the Australian court to consider Rejuvi’s application to set aside the default judgment. In June 2018, after a hearing at which Rejuvi appeared and made arguments, the South Australian district court refused to set aside its 2016 default damage judgment. Rejuvi appealed to the Supreme Court of South Australia, but did not pursue the appeal.