Problem 7'1 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 27
About This Presentation
Title:

Problem 7'1

Description:

... in Alberta court and the property was sold at judicial sale ... As manufacturer of tires, CANTIRE was deemed liable for the accident by NJ District Court ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:27
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: pra8151
Category:
Tags: for | problem | sale | tires

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Problem 7'1


1
Problem 7.1
  • Recognition and Enforcement of U.S. Judgments in
    Foreign Courts

2
Relevant Facts
  • Plaintiffs
  • Two U.S. Citizens
  • NJ residents
  • Two UK citizens

3
Relevant Facts
  • Defendants
  • CANTIRE
  • Headquartered in Niagara, Canada
  • Manufactured tires
  • DROF AG
  • Headquartered in Badenburg, Germany
  • Manufactured SUV
  • German-UK joint venture
  • DROF-UK PLC
  • Plant facility in Ipswich, UK
  • Tire assembly and installation
  • VUSCO
  • Distribution franchise in NY-NJ region
  • US plaintiffs purchased SUV here

4
Relevant Facts
  • Agreements among parties
  • VUSCO and DROF AG
  • Forum selection clause in contract
  • Choice of forum is court of the Netherlands
  • VUSCO and CANTIRE
  • Forum selection clause
  • Venue for disputes should be in court in England

5
Procedural Considerations
  • Claims
  • Injured parties decide to bring suit in NJ
  • CANTIRE, DROF AG, DROF-UK PLC and VUSCO all named
    as defendants
  • Cross-claims between Defendants
  • VUSCO against DROF AG
  • Liability alleged for faulty design and
    manufacture by DROF AG
  • DROF AG and VUSCO
  • Indemnity against CANTIRE tires defective and
    cause of the accident

6
Procedural Considerations
  • Defendant strategy
  • CANTIRE plans to rely upon forum selection clause
    in the contract with DROF AG
  • Verdict
  • Judgment awarded by NJ Federal District Court
    against CANTIRE, DROF AG, and DROF-UK PLC all as
    jointly and severally liable.
  • Amount
  • 50,000 for lost wages
  • 125,000 for past medical expenses
  • 75,000 for future medical expenses
  • 400,000 in punitive damages (based on finding of
    intentionally reckless conduct)

7
Question to Consider
  • In what countries do the defendants have assets
    sufficient to satisfy the judgment?
  • Liability is joint and several we should pursue
    judgment where enforcement is most likely to be
    accomplished

8
How can we gain relief in a foreign country from
a U.S. judgment?
  • Ideally, the country where we seek enforcement of
    judgment is party to a reciprocal recognition and
    enforcement of judgment treaty, along with the
    state where litigation took place.
  • Example EU has the Brussels Regulation among
    member states
  • Allows for recognition and enforcement of
    judgment between Member States of the EU (See
    Chapter III, Recognition and Enforcement)

9
How can we gain relief in a foreign country from
a U.S. judgment?
  • The United States is not a party to any bilateral
    or multilateral treaty dealing with recognition
    and enforcement of judgments.
  • As such enforcement of the U.S. judgment in
    foreign countries will be a matter of local law
  • What are some problems with reciprocity and
    enforcing U.S. judgments abroad?
  • Civil law tradition many countries demand a
    physical presence by a party when a court asserts
    jurisdiction, rather than a seemingly nebulous
    standard such as purposeful availment or minimum
    contacts.
  • This activities based standard for jurisdiction
    in the U.S. is not followed by many other
    countries.

10
Cases
  • Enforcing judgment in Canada against CANTIRE
  • Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye
  • United States of America v. C. Robert Ivey, Maziv
    Industries, Ltd.
  • Enforcing judgment in Germany against DROF AG

11
Can the U.S. ruling be enforced in Canada?
  • Inter-Provincial enforcement Morguard
  • Enforcement of foreign rulings Ivey
  • Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act

12
Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye
  • Facts
  • Defendant defaulted on mortgage of property in
    Alberta
  • Plaintiffs obtained a default foreclosure
    judgment in Alberta court and the property was
    sold at judicial sale
  • Plaintiffs then initiated suit in British
    Columbia Court for the deficiencies between the
    value of the property and the amount owed on the
    mortgage

13
Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye
  • Canadian Supreme Court essentially created a
    full faith and credit obligation among Canadian
    courts
  • As long as the court of origin had jurisdiction,
    the judgment should be enforced
  • Jurisdiction over a Defendant outside the forum
    is based on the Defendants real and substantial
    connection to the forum

14
Morguard Investments Ltd. V. De Savoye
  • Real and Substantial Connection Test
  • In product liability actions
  • Is it reasonably foreseeable that the products
    produced outside the forum would be used or
    consumed in the forum?
  • In contract actions
  • Where was the contract made?
  • Where is the object of the contract located?

15
United States of America v. C. Robert Ivey, Maziv
Industries, Ltd.
  • Facts
  • The Defendants were Canadian shareholders of LDI,
    a Michigan corporation that operated a waste
    disposal site in Michigan
  • The EPA forced remedial measures in relation to
    this waste disposal site
  • The EPA initiated an action in U.S. District
    Court against LDI and won a default judgment for
    reimbursement under CERCLA

16
United States of America v. C. Robert Ivey, Maziv
Industries, Ltd.
  • The court imported the Morguard rationale to the
    enforcement of foreign rulings
  • In the name of comity the court will usually
    enforce foreign judgments as long as valid
    jurisdiction existed in the court of origin
  • Defendants had real and substantial contacts
    with the United States
  • Operated business in US
  • Defendant Ivey made decisions concerning
    environmental issues and appeared before
    environmental agencies on behalf of LDI

17
United States of America v. C. Robert Ivey, Mariz
Industries, Ltd
  • However, the Canadian courts will not enforce
    foreign judgments when enforcement would be
    contrary to public policy
  • The foreign judgment must be so offensive to the
    morality of society to the extent that it is not
    consonant with the Canadian system of justice in
    order to trigger the exception
  • This does not include situations where the
    applicable Canadian law just happens to be
    different than the foreign law

18
Canadian Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
Act
  • So far Saskatchewan is the only province that has
    enacted it
  • The Act would largely create statutory authority
    for rulings in Morguard and Ivey

19
Six Prerequisites for German Enforcement 
  • Finality - 723(2) ZPO requires that judgments be
    final and conclusive in the foreign jurisdiction.
  • Jurisdiction - 328(1)1 ZPO requires that the
    judgment was rendered by a court with
    jurisdiction over the parties and the dispute.
  • Service of Process - 328(1)2 requires that the
    defendant appeared to defend himself in the
    action, or if he did not that he was given notice
    of the proceedings.

20
Six Prerequisites for German Enforcement
  • No Earlier Judgment - 328(1)3 requires that the
    judgment does not contradict an earlier judgment
    or proceeding.
  • Public Policy - 328(1)4 ZPO requires that
    enforcement of the judgment is not contrary with
    basic principles of German law.
  • Reciprocity - 328(1)5 requires that the judgment
    was rendered by a court that would enforce a
    similar German judgment.

21
Procedure for German Enforcement
  • 722 ZPO governs the procedure for the
    enforcement of foreign judgments. It requires
    that an action for enforcement be brought by the
    enforcing party in a County or District Court
    that has jurisdiction over the debtor.
  • Note - There is no review of the merits of the
    case in this action (723(1) ZPO).

22
Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice
  • Facts
  • California action based on a sexual offense
  • Defendant remained in Germany
  • Court awarded plaintiff damages, including
    400,000 in punitive damages
  • German Procedural History
  • District Court - issued an enforcement order
  • Appellate Court - upheld the enforcement, limited
    to 275,325

23
Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice
(cont.) 
  • Public Policy
  • Pre-Trial Discovery
  • American Rule of Costs
  • Level of Damages
  • Contingency Fees
  • Punitive Damages

24
Application to Facts 
  • Finality
  • Jurisdiction
  • Service of Process
  • Earlier Judgments
  • Public Policy
  • Lost Wages Future Expenses
  • Contingency Fees
  • Punitive Damages
  • Reciprocity

25
Conclusion/Application
  • Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment in Canada
  • According to case law in Morguard and Ives
  • The court will usually enforce foreign judgments
    as long as valid jurisdiction existed in the
    court of origin
  • Valid jurisdiction is dependent on real and
    substantial contacts test established in
    Morguard
  • CANTIRE, like Ivey, operated a business in the
    U.S.
  • As manufacturer of tires, CANTIRE was deemed
    liable for the accident by NJ District Court

26
Conclusion/Application
  • Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment in
    Germany
  • Statutory provisions exist to govern the
    enforcement of foreign judgments by German courts
  • Assuming finality, valid jurisdiction, valid
    service of process, no previous contradictory
    judgment, no curbing of German public policy, and
    full reciprocity foreign judgments will be
    enforced
  • DROF AG is headquartered in Germany,
  • As manufacturer of SUV purchased by plaintiffs,
    DROF AG was deemed liable by NJ District Court
  • NJ District Court asserted valid jurisdiction
    over DROF AG in the dispute, and satisfied other
    723 and 328 statutory requirements

27
Conclusion/Application
  • Checklist
  • Look for bilateral or multilateral recognition
    and enforcement agreements between countries in
    order to get a treaty/statutory basis for
    pursuing judgment
  • Other countries may severely limit ability to
    enforce multiple damages or punitive damages
    awarded by a U.S. court of valid jurisdiction
  • But countries willing to respect U.S. notion of
    activities based personal jurisdiction are more
    likely to enforce a U.S. judgment within their
    courts
  • Look for parallel jurisdictional requirements in
    foreign law to the country in which a judgment is
    obtained,
  • Given a similar jurisdictional requirement, seek
    enforcement of judgment by the foreign court
    assuming valid jurisdiction was obtained in the
    original trial
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com