Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV00077, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00077, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

On January 11, 2023, plaintiffs Alan Chung Wah Tang (“Tang”) and Hou Chung Man (“Man”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this complaint to domesticate a foreign judgment against Lee Siu Fung, Siegfried (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs bring this action in their capacity as the Joint and Several Trustees in Bankruptcy of the Property of the Bankrupt. On March 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint to domesticate three sets of tax assessed legal costs, totaling HK$6,080,000 plus accrued interest (collectively, the “Hong Kong Judgments”). (FAC, ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs allege that on or about January 18, 2001, Defendant filed for bankruptcy relief under the laws of Hong Kong. (FAC, ¶ 5.) On or about September 19, 2002, Plaintiffs were appointed as “Joint and Several Trustees in Bankruptcy of Defendant’s Hong Kong bankruptcy estate.” (FAC, ¶ 6.) The Hong Kong Judgments arose out of post-bankruptcy litigation between Plaintiffs and Defendant. (FAC, ¶ 8.)

A moving plaintiff meets their burden on summary judgment by proving each element entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The burden then shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto. A party may also move for summary adjudication “as to . . . one or more affirmative defenses . . . if the party contends…that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to a cause of action[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437, subd. (f)(1).) On such a motion, the plaintiff bears the initial burden to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to the defense and that they are entitled to judgment on the defense as a matter of law. (See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 889, 900.) To meet that initial burden, the “plaintiff must negate an essential element of the defense, or establish the defendant does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence needed to support the defense.” (Id.) If the plaintiff’s moving papers “establish a prima facie showing that justifies a [ruling] in the [plaintiff’s] favor, the burden then shifts to the [defendant] to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable material factual issue.” (Id. [quoting Rehmani v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 945, 950].)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice and takes notice of the three foreign laws identified in the request as well as copies of the Hong Kong Judgments.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice on the grounds of relevance.

The Court rules on objections to evidence material to its disposition of the motion as follows:

Plaintiffs assert a single cause of action seeking to domesticate the Hong Kong Judgments pursuant to the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1713, et seq. (“the Act”). The Act applies to a foreign-country judgment to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money and, under the law of the foreign country where rendered, is final, conclusive, and enforceable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1715, subd. (a).) The Act does not apply to a judgment for taxes, fines or penalties, or judgments rendered in connection with domestic relations. (Id., subd. (b).) A party seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that it is entitled to recognition. (Id., subd. (c).) Once the party seeking recognition meets his burden of establishing recognition of the foreign-country judgment, the burden shifts to the party resisting recognition to establish one of the grounds for non-recognition stated in Code Civ. Proc. § 1716 subdivision (b) or (c) exists. (Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. v. Lee (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th, 1385, 1386 [“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”].) A foreign-country judgment shall not be recognized if any of the grounds identified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1716 apply.

Plaintiff argues that the Hong Kong Judgments should be recognized because they (1) grant a recovery of a sum of money, (2) are final, conclusive, and enforceable in the country where they originated, (3) are not for taxes, a fine or other penalty, or in connection with domestic relations. (Motion, p. 2.)

It is undisputed that between June 2020 and February 2021, the Hong Kong Court ordered Defendant to pay three sets of tax assessed legal costs for principal sums totaling HK $6,080,000 plus accrued interest at the prevailing Hong Kong judgment rates. (UMF No. 1.) Therefore, it is undisputed that the Hong Kong Judgments seek recovery of a sum of money. (UMF No. 4.) Although Defendant disputes that the sum payable and owed totals HK$9,588,882, Defendant’s argument is simply that one of the allocaturs does not state that interest accrues, without providing any evidence that the amount claimed by Plaintiff is incorrect. (Response to UMF No. 6.)

Next, Plaintiff argues that the Hong Kong Judgments are final, conclusive, and enforceable because they were stamped with the Hong Kong Court’s seal in 2020 and 2021 and have never been appealed. (UMF Nos. 2-3, Tang Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff cites to Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 155, which states, “Judgments and rulings made by the Supreme People’s Court, and judgments and rulings that may not be appealed against according to the law or that have not been appealed against within the prescribed time limit, shall be legally effective.” (RJN, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also cites to Hong Kong laws stating that notices of appeal must be issued within 14 days after the judgment, order or decision appealed against was given or made.” (RJN, ¶ 1.) Applications for review of a taxing master’s decisions must be made within 14 days after the conclusion of the taxation proceedings in which the taxing master’s decision was made. (RJN, ¶ 2.)

Third, Plaintiff argues that the Hong Kong Judgments are not for taxes, fines, or penalties, or related to domestic relations. (Tang Decl., ¶ 5.) Tang declares that they arise from post-bankruptcy litigation between Plaintiffs and Defendant. (Ibid.)

In opposition, Defendant mainly contends that the Hong Kong Judgments are orders, not judgments to be domesticated. (Response to UMF Nos. 2-9.) This argument is unavailing because Defendant does not identify any conflicting law or contend that the laws cited are inapplicable. Defendant offers no evidence or authority explaining how the Hong Kong Judgments are not “the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 557.) Defendant’s distinction between a “judgment” and an “order” as simply two different words is insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact regarding the finality of the Hong Kong Court’s determination.

Next, Defendant argues that the Hong Kong court lacked jurisdiction over him and that he was denied due process. Defendant declares that he is a British citizen and left Hong Kong in August 2016 and moved to California. (Lee Decl., ¶ 2.) He states he does not own any property in Hong Kong and has not set foot in Hong Kong since at least when COVID started, which was in January of 2020. (Lee Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant states he did not make any appearances or sign any documents in the Hong Kong cases from 2020 and was not served with process. (Lee Decl., ¶ 3.)

However, on reply, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s declaration fails to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the validity of the Hong Kong Judgments because Defendant instigated the proceedings that resulted in those Judgments. Court documents from the underlying case, HCB345 of 2001, show that Defendant was represented by a solicitor, David Y.Y. Fung & Co. (“DYYF”) during those proceedings. (Supp. Tang Decl., ¶¶ 4-7, Exs. A-D.) Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Hong Kong Action, ONC Lawyers, also declare that they served DYYF as the solicitors on records for Defendant with court documents in the underlying action. (Tung Decl., ¶¶ 3-8.) Therefore, whether Defendant personally signed letters or appeared in person in those proceedings is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the issues of jurisdiction and due process.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.