Ledroit Law v. Kim
2015 COA 114
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Ledroit Law, a Canadian firm, obtained an Ontario Superior Court assessment for C$15,829.99 against Snell & Wilmer (an Arizona law firm with Colorado offices) and associate Eugene Kim for work coordinating subpoena service in Ontario.
- Ledroit mailed a "Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Costs" to Kim’s Snell & Wilmer office in Colorado; defendants did not appear and the Ontario court entered the assessment.
- Ledroit sought recognition/enforcement of the Ontario assessment in Colorado; the district court initially used Colorado’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, then treated the filing under the Uniform Foreign-country Money Judgments Recognition Act (Recognition Act), and ultimately recognized the Ontario assessment (also invoking comity).
- Defendants moved to vacate recognition, arguing (inter alia) the Ontario court lacked personal jurisdiction because service by regular mail was invalid and the defendants lacked minimum contacts with Ontario.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding service by regular mail did not comply with Ontario rules (and thus was invalid), the Ontario court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction, and Colorado courts may not recognize the assessment under the Recognition Act; comity could not save recognition where the statute mandates denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado should recognize the Ontario money judgment under the Recognition Act | Ledroit: the Ontario assessment is within the Recognition Act and should be recognized; service by mail was permitted under Ontario rules and/or validated by the Ontario court | Defendants: the Ontario court lacked personal jurisdiction because service by regular mail was invalid under Ontario/Hague rules and minimum contacts were lacking | Court: Recognition Act applies; judgment not recognizable because foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction due to invalid service |
| Whether service by regular mail complied with Ontario Rule 17.05(3)(b) and related Ontario rules | Ledroit: Ontario rules (Rule 16.03(4), Rule 16.08, Rule 2.03) allow or validate service by mail or dispense with strict compliance | Defendants: Rule 17.05 requires Hague-compliant methods; Ontario rules did not permit the mail method used, no acknowledgment card, no validating order | Court: Mail service did not comply with Ontario rules—no acknowledgment card, no order for alternative service, and the assessment did not constitute a Rule 16.08 validation |
| Whether Ontario court’s assessment constituted validation of defective service under Ontario Rule 16.08 | Ledroit: the assessment form and circumstances show the Ontario court validated service | Defendants: the assessment contains no Rule 16.08 findings and cannot substitute for a validation order | Court: Assessment form did not show the court made Rule 16.08 findings; validated service was not obtained |
| Whether Colorado may recognize the foreign judgment on comity grounds despite Recognition Act grounds for nonrecognition | Ledroit: even if Recognition Act issues exist, comity independently supports recognition | Defendants: when a judgment falls within the Recognition Act, the statute controls and forbids recognition where a mandatory ground for nonrecognition exists | Court: When a judgment falls within the Recognition Act, courts must apply the statute; comity cannot override a statutory mandatory ground for denial (personal jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (valid service of process is prerequisite to exercise of personal jurisdiction)
- Goodman Assocs., LLC v. WP Mountain Props., LLC, 222 P.3d 310 (Colo. 2010) (default judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) (Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention may permit mailed service only if forum law authorizes it)
- Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. Storman Asia M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002) (reading Article 10(a) as not authorizing service by mail)
- Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986) (treating Article 10(a) as permitting some direct service methods consistent with forum law)
- Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 196 P.3d 892 (Colo. 2008) (de novo review for legal standard application)
- Milhoux v. Linder, 902 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1995) (recognition on comity grounds where Recognition Act did not apply)