703 F. App'x 79
3rd Cir.2017Background
- FSS, a Pennsylvania corporation, had a 1996 software-license agreement with LDCS (Swiss); a 2012 amendment contained an exclusive English-jurisdiction forum-selection clause.
- LDCS sued FSS in the U.K. Mercantile Court; U.K. court authorized service in Pennsylvania, and LDCS used a private process server who personally served an FSS director.
- FSS did not respond; U.K. court entered a default judgment (principal plus costs) on January 18, 2013.
- LDCS first attempted to file the U.K. judgment in Pennsylvania state court; the filing was struck for failure to use the Pennsylvania Recognition Act (UFMJRA).
- LDCS then sued in federal court under Pennsylvania’s Recognition Act to recognize and enforce the U.K. judgment; both sides moved for summary judgment.
- District Court recognized and enforced the U.K. judgment, awarded post-judgment interest at 8% (U.K. Judgments Act), and FSS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the U.K. judgment may be recognized under the Pennsylvania Recognition Act despite service in PA by a private process server rather than a sheriff | LDCS: Recognition Act bars jurisdictional challenges where defendant agreed to submit to foreign court jurisdiction via forum-selection clause; FSS received actual notice so judgment should be recognized | FSS: Service was improper under PA Rule requiring sheriff service; improper service undermines personal jurisdiction and thus recognition | Held: Recognition Act addresses substantive personal jurisdiction (e.g., minimum contacts) not technical service formalities; because FSS consented by forum-selection clause and received actual notice, judgment is recognizable |
| Whether a forum-selection clause waives objection to defective service | LDCS: Clause consenting to English jurisdiction suffices to preclude a personal-jurisdiction challenge under the Recognition Act | FSS: Forum clause does not equal waiver of technical service requirements; proper service still required | Held: Clause suffices under the Recognition Act; technical service rules do not defeat recognition where defendant had notice and consented |
| Whether the Hague Convention or U.S./state service rules required sheriff service for enforcement/defense | LDCS: Hague permits service so long as method complies with law of the State addressed (U.S. federal rules suffice) and defendant received timely notice | FSS: Hague/PA law required sheriff service; lack thereof violates Convention and undermines judgment | Held: Hague Convention does not impose PA sheriff requirement; federal service rules apply and do not require a sheriff; Article 10 preserves service alternatives |
| Whether post-judgment interest at 8% could be awarded by the U.S. court enforcing the foreign judgment | LDCS: U.S. court may attach post-judgment interest when enforcing foreign judgments; U.K. Judgments Act provides for 8% | FSS: LDCS should have requested interest in U.K. proceedings; U.K. court might have exercised discretion differently | Held: U.S. courts enforcing foreign judgments may award post-judgment interest; awarding interest under the U.K. Judgments Act was permissible here |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (due-process notice requirement satisfied by reasonably calculated notice)
- Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986) (Hague Convention service evaluated against federal, not state, requirements)
- Dunn v. HOVIC, 13 F.3d 58 (3d Cir. 1993) (post-judgment interest accrues by operation of law and can be added ministerially)
- Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 808 F.3d 638 (3d Cir. 2015) (standard for review of summary judgment)
- Maltas v. Maltas, 2 A.3d 902 (Conn. 2010) (adequate service necessary but often not sufficient for jurisdiction)