Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial, Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUBEI GEZHOUBA SANLIAN No. 09-56629
INDUSTRIAL, CO., LTD., a company
located in Hubei Province, People’s D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01798-FMC-SS
Republic of China and HUBEI PINGHU
CRUISE CO., LTD., a company located in
Hubei Province, People’s Republic of MEMORANDUM *
China,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY,
INC., a California corporation,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: RYMER, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Robinson Helicopter Company (“RHC”) is estopped from arguing that the
judgment of the Higher People’s Court of Hubei Province in the People’s Republic
of China (PRC) in favor of Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial and Hubei Pinghu
Cruise Company (collectively, “Hubei”) is not “enforceable where rendered” under
California’s Uniform Foreign-Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA), Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code § 1713 et seq. (2006), repealed by 2007 Cal. Stat. ch. 212. See
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001). RHC’s failure to pay the
final PRC judgment was “clearly inconsistent” with RHC’s stipulation to the
California court that it would “abide by any final judgment rendered in the civil
action commenced in China.” See id. at 750. Moreover, accepting RHC’s
argument that the PRC judgment is no longer enforceable would create the
perception that the California court was “misled” in granting RHC’s forum non
conveniens motion and would “impose an unfair detriment” on Hubei. See id. at
750–51 (quoting Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th Cir.
1982)). The balance of equities in this case tips in favor of Hubei. Id. at 751.
Therefore, in the interest of “protect[ing] the integrity of the judicial process,” we
decline to consider RHC’s argument regarding the PRC’s domestic statute of
limitations. Id. at 749 (quoting Edwards, 690 F.2d at 598).
2
RHC’s stipulation to the California court that it would “submit to [the]
jurisdiction of the appropriate civil court in China” bars it from arguing for non-
recognition of the PRC judgment on the basis of the PRC court’s alleged lack of
personal jurisdiction. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1713.5(a)(3) (2006). The district
court’s factual finding that Robinson received sufficient actual notice of the PRC
action was not clearly erroneous, see United States v. Bell, 602 F.3d 1074, 1079
(9th Cir. 2010), and therefore Robinson’s argument for non-recognition of the PRC
judgment on the basis of a lack of adequate notice, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§ 1713.4(b)(1) (2006), also fails. Finally, because RHC has not shown that
California courts may refuse to recognize foreign money judgments on grounds
other than those listed in the UFMJRA, any technical non-compliance with the
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in
Civil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638,
cannot serve as an independent basis for non-recognition of the PRC judgment. Cf.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1713.3 (2006); Manco Contracting Co. (W.W.L.) v.
Bezdikian, 195 P.3d 604, 610 (Cal. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
3