Opinion ID: 789742
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Principles of comity apply in this case.

Text: 83 Unlike New Mexico, Utah has not adopted the Uniform Foreign-Money Judgment Recognition Act. The Utah Supreme Court has indicated that a foreign country judgment can be enforced in Utah courts under principles of comity. Mori v. Mori, 931 P.2d 854, 856 (Utah 1997) (citing Hilton, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95). Under the Supreme Court's holding in Hilton, the principles of comity require recognition of a foreign judgment if 84 (1) there has been opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad before a court of competent jurisdiction, 85 (2) conducting the trial upon regular proceedings, after due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, 86 (3) under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice between the citizens of its own country and those of other countries, 87 (4) there is nothing to show either prejudice in the court, or in the system of laws under which it was sitting, or fraud in procuring the judgment, or 88 (5) no other special reason exists indicating why the comity of this nation should not allow it full effect. 89 Hilton, 159 U.S. at 202, 16 S.Ct. 139 (emphasis added). 90 According to the Utah Names, and in seeming contrast to Hilton, Utah's comity requires an analysis of the fairness of the English judgment, not merely of the English judicial system. The judgment here was based upon the Utah Names' signing the General Undertaking, which is a standardized contract between Lloyd's and the individual Names. According to the Utah Names, their assent to the General Undertaking resulted in their unknowing waiver of future due process rights in the Equitas contract. 91 Utah law provides that questions regarding the validity of a foreign judgment should be tested by the law of the jurisdiction where the judgment was rendered. Rocky Mtn. Claim Staking v. Frandsen, 884 P.2d 1299, 1300-01 (Utah Ct.App.1994). We have no choice under Hilton and Rocky Mountain but to examine the entirety of the foreign judicial system, and not the particularity of individual judgments. See also 1 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations § 482 cmt. b (1987) (A court asked to recognize or enforce the judgment of a foreign court must satisfy itself of the essential fairness of the judicial system under which the judgment was rendered.). Like all the other circuits that have examined the question, we have already determined that the English judicial system is procedurally above reproach. See, e.g. Ashenden, 233 F.3d at 478 (Even if the [defendants'] approach is valid — and we want to emphasize our belief that it is not — it cannot possibly avail the defendants here unless they are right that the approach requires subjecting the foreign proceeding to the specifics of the American doctrine of due process.); see also Hilton, 159 U.S. at 205, 16 S.Ct. 139 ([W]e are not prepared to hold that the fact that the [foreign] procedure ... differed from that of our own courts is, of itself, a sufficient ground for impeaching the foreign judgment.). 92 Here, for the sake of completeness, the district court looked to the underlying decisions rendered by the English courts that have considered and rejected each of the Utah Names' challenges to the pay-now, sue-later and conclusive evidence clauses. Case No. 02-2301, Aple's Supl.App. at 230 (Utah Dist. Ct. Order filed Nov. 12, 2002). The pay-now, sue-later provision left the Names free to pursue claims of fraud against Lloyd's in a separate proceeding, which many Names pursued unsuccessfully in the Jaffray litigation. See id. (citing Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Wilkinson & Others, at 17, 21 (Q.B. 23 Apr. 1997), aff'd, Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Lyon, Leighs & Wilkinson (C.A. 31 July 1997) (Case Nos. 03-4065, -4082, -4094, -4183, Aple's Supl.App. vol. III, doc. 4, ex. J, at 682)). 93 The district court observed that the English courts held that the conclusive evidence clause was not an unusual type of clause and [was] in principle appropriate to [the] contract. Case No. 02-2301, Aple's Supl.App. at 230 (quoting Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Fraser & Others, at 27 (C.A. 31 July 1998) (Case Nos. 03-4065, -4082, -4094, -4183, Aple's Supl.App. vol. III, doc. 4, ex. J, at 707)). Furthermore, the English courts considered and rejected the argument that the Names should not be bound by the Equitas contract. Case No. 02-2301, Aple's Supl.App. at 230 (citing Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Fitzgerald, Leigh and Others, (Q.B. 20 Feb. 1997), aff'd, Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Lyon, Leighs & Wilkinson (C.A. 31 July 1997) (Case Nos. 03-4065, -4082, -4094, -4183, Aple's Supp, App. vol. III, doc. 4, ex. J, at 622)). 94 We must reject the Utah Names' contentions that they were bound by unlawful contracts, that they were prohibited from asserting affirmative defenses, and that they were prohibited from discovering or presenting evidence to refute the existence of amount or liability. We therefore agree with the district court that the Utah Names were given a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims before the English courts. 95 Similarly, we must reject the defenses mounted by the Harmsens. The English court considered and rejected the allegations involving material misrepresentations made by Lloyd's in connection with the solicitation of investment by potential Names. 96