Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCP01594, Date: 2024-09-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP01594    Hearing Date: September 3, 2024    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

            Defendant See Global Events Inc.’s Demurrer to Complaint

Defendant See Global Events Inc. demurs to plaintiff Expand Trading Co.’s complaint for recognition of foreign judgment.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for recognition of a foreign judgment.  The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act provides, “If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of the foreign-country judgment.”  (CCP § 1718(a).)  Defendant demurs based on an exception provided under the statutory scheme: “A court of this state shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if … [t]he defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.”  (CCP § 1716(c)(1)(A).) 

Any such defect does not appear from the face of the complaint.  The complaint alleges, “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges Defendant was duly served pursuant to the Hague Convention with the Swiss equivalent of a summons in the Swiss Action pursuant to the laws of Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich.  A true and correct copy of a certified English translation of the proof of service generated by the office of the Consulate General for the Swiss Consulate in San Francisco, International Legal Assistance, translated from German, together with the proof of FedEx delivery to Defendant, and the original German language copy thereof, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.”  (Comp., ¶ 18.)

It further alleges, “On November 2, 2023, Swiss counsel of record for Plaintiff emailed courtesy copies of the pleadings in the Swiss Action to each of Singer and Defendant’s principal, Martin Biallas (‘Biallas’), and informed them that the proceedings had been filed (the ‘Courtesy Email’). A true and correct copy of the Courtesy Email is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.”  (Comp., ¶ 19.)  The complaint also alleges, “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges Defendant was given valid service of process under Swiss law and had actual notice of the proceedings associated with the Zurich Judgment, as made clear by the proof of service (Exhibit 3), the Courtesy Email (Exhibit 4), and Defendant’s failure to rebut that proof of service (constituting an adoptive admission thereto) (Exhibit 7).”  (Id., ¶ 35.)

Defendant argues these allegations are insufficient because they are made on information and belief.  “A ‘ “[p]laintiff may allege on information and belief any matters that are not within his personal knowledge, if he has information leading him to believe that the allegations are true” ’ [citation], and thus a pleading made on information and belief is insufficient if it ‘merely assert[s] the facts so alleged without alleging such information that “lead[s] [the plaintiff] to believe that the allegations are true.” ’ ”   (Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1158–1159.)

Plaintiff alleges the information that leads it to believe the allegations are true.  Plaintiff attached a copy of the proof of service (Comp., ¶ 18, Ex. 3) and a copy of the courtesy emails to defendant (id., ¶ 19, Ex. 4).  These allegations suffice on demurrer. 

Defendant argues the courtesy email did not give actual notice of the lawsuit because it states plaintiff is “in the process of serving you” and “would be pleased to send the filed lawsuit.”  (Comp., Ex. 4.)  Code of Civil Procedure section 1716(c)(1)(A) provides that courts shall not recognize a foreign judgment when the defendant “did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.”  “[N]otice of the proceeding” does not necessarily mean receiving a copy of the complaint and summons.  The courtesy email states, “On 20 April 2023, we filed a claim with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich against SEE Global Events Inc. for” an alleged debt.  (Comp., Ex. 4.)  Even if the email did not include a copy of the lawsuit, it gave defendant notice that there was a proceeding in a specific venue and explained the nature of the proceeding.  On demurrer, the court cannot conclude defendant did not receive notice of the proceeding in time to defend.

Defendant also contends that the service in Switzerland was “not valid service under California law.”  (Demurrer, p. 7.)  That is irrelevant.  The judgment was rendered in Switzerland.  The statutory scheme for recognizing foreign judgments does not require that the summons in the foreign action be served in accordance with California law.  The issue is whether there was “proper service under” the relevant foreign law and, if so, “whether such service was reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to impart actual notice.”  (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 189, 203.)  Nothing on the face of the complaint shows service was improper under Swiss law or that it was not reasonably calculated to impart actual notice. 

Finally, defendant makes arguments based on facts extrinsic to the complaint.  For example, it argues, “Defendant is a California corporation with one office located in Los Angeles.  Defendant has no connection to Switzerland other than the statement in the underlying contract that suit shall be filed there, something that was requested by Plaintiff and not defendant.”  (Demurrer, p. 9.)  Similarly, defendant argues the lawsuit was served on “a receptionist in the lower lobby of [a] twenty-three floor building,” and “[t]here is no receptionist in Defendant’s suite.”  (Id., p. 4.)  A demurrer “test[s] the legal sufficiency of a complaint.”  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  The court cannot consider the declaration of Martin Biallas or any extrinsic evidence.  The complaint is legally sufficient.

Disposition  

Defendant See Global Events Inc.’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint is overruled.  Defendant is ordered to answer within 20 days.