Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCP02964, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02964    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff Wang Shoutu filed a complaint for entry of California Court Judgment pursuant to the Uniform Foreign-Country Judgments Recognition Act (“the Act”), Code of Civil Procedure section 1713, et seq. against Defendants Ling Yandong, and Does 1-50.

Plaintiff alleges that the Higher People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (Appellate Court) in in the People’s Republic of China entered judgment against Defendants Suzhou Dingi and Shanghai Dingjin to pay Plaintiff 50,000,000 yuan, with interest, with Defendant Ling to have joint liability for satisfaction of the judgment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ling has failed and refused to pay the judgment.

On August 24, 2023, the Court scheduled an OSC hearing for 12/4/23 to show why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to file proof of service. To avoid a mandatory appearance, the notice specified that all required documents were to be filed at least 5 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Petition to Enforce Foreign Country Judgments

As explained by the Court in Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. v. Lee (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 682, 688-689, the Act, which is based on the Uniform Foreign–Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (13 (Part.II) Uniform Laws Annotated, Civil Procedural and Remedial Laws (2012 Supp.) 18), applies to foreign-country judgments that grant or deny recovery of a sum of money and that are final, conclusive, and enforceable under the law of the foreign country. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1715(a), 1724 [all further statutory citations herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure].) The Act, contained in Code of Civil Procedure Part 3—“Of Special Proceedings of a Civil Nature”—sets forth the procedure for recognition of a foreign-country money judgment by providing the requirement that “the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action” or by “counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense.” (§ 1718, subds.(a), (b).) The Act contains a 10–year period of limitations for bringing an action to recognize a foreign-country money judgment. (§ 1721.) It allocates the burden of proof for establishing whether a foreign-country money judgment is within the scope of the Act and whether there is any ground for not recognizing the existence of the judgment. (§§ 1715, subd. (c), 1716.) The party seeking recognition of a foreign-country money judgment has the burden to establish entitlement to recognition under the Act, while the party resisting recognition has the burden of establishing a specified ground for nonrecognition. (Ibid.) The Act specifies that if the court finds that a foreign-country money judgment is entitled to recognition in California then, to the extent the judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, it is conclusive between the parties to the same extent as the judgment of a sister-state entitled to full faith and credit in this state would be conclusive, and the foreign-country money judgment is enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as a judgment rendered in this state. (§ 1719.)

The Act provides for various defenses if the foreign-country money judgment is final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered. These include, in essence, when the foreign-country money judgment was rendered under circumstances that violated due process or lacked impartiality or integrity, was without jurisdiction, was without notice, or was in conflict with California public policy or another judgment. (§ 1716.) Unless one of the specified defenses applies, the court “shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to which [the Act applies].” (§ 1716, subd. (a).) The Act does not apply, inter alia, to a fine or penalty. (§ 1715, subd. (b)(2).)

In Hyundai, the court held that the trial court could not recognize foreign-country money judgments merely upon the filing of a petition, such as with truncated procedures like a petition to compel arbitration or for recognizing a sister state judgment. (Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd., supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pp. 690-693.)  It reasoned that “[a]s the Act requires an action, and does not provide for any procedures other than those procedures applicable to actions, a plaintiff, in order to obtain recognition of a foreign-country money judgment must proceed in accordance with the normal procedures applicable to actions and not by way of a motion or petition to recognize the foreign-country money judgment.” (Id. at p. 693.) It further stated, “[i]f Hyundai wishes to have its contentions dealt with summarily, it must do so by way of a motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. [citation omitted]. If it does not succeed in a summary judgment motion or a judgment on the pleadings, the issues will require a trial.” (Id.at p. 694.)

Similarly, here, even if Plaintiff had filed a proof of service (which he has not), the Court cannot enter judgment for Plaintiff by way of petition alone as it would be procedurally improper to do so. “The trial court may not employ special procedures that circumvent the procedures required by statute.” (Hyundai Securities Co., supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at 693.) Further, the Court notes that an OSC hearing is set for the same day as the hearing on this petition, for why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to file proof of service. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has not filed all required documents at least 5 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s petition to enter foreign-country judgment for failure to file a proof of service, and failure to file the necessary dispositive motion.