Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B v. v. Holland America Bulb Farms, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21172
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Holland America Bulb Farms, a Washington corporation, purchased tulip bulbs from Midbrook Flowerbulbs (a Dutch company managed in part by the importer’s brother). Payments were routed via a U.S. dollar bank account and converted into a Dutch guilder account before Midbrook paid itself.
- Holland America suspected systematic overbilling and sought Midbrook’s underlying cost and bank records; the parties orally agreed mid-1999 to end the relationship but Midbrook handled the 1999 harvest and invoiced ~3.2 million guilders, which Holland America did not fully fund, leading Midbrook to overdraft and pay itself.
- Midbrook sued in the Alkmaar District Court (Netherlands) for the 1999 invoices; Holland America counterclaimed alleging overpayments for 1994–1998 and sought broad discovery. The district court dismissed most counterclaims and awarded Midbrook damages for the 1999 overdraft, reducing some charges after limited document review.
- The Amsterdam Court of Appeal reversed the district court on the existence of a 1999 settlement (credit of 100,000 guilders), ordered production of certain bank statements, corrected account calculations, and adjusted the award downward; the Dutch Supreme Court summarily dismissed Holland America’s appeal.
- Midbrook then filed in U.S. district court to recognize and enforce the Dutch (appeal-corrected) judgment under Washington’s UFCMJRA. Holland America argued nonrecognition under UFCMJRA §4(c)(8) (specific proceeding incompatible with due process) and sought additional discovery in the U.S. case. The district court granted summary judgment for Midbrook and denied further discovery; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Holland America’s Argument | Midbrook’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dutch judgment should be denied recognition under UFCMJRA §4(c)(8) because the specific Dutch proceedings were incompatible with due process | Dutch proceedings denied fundamental fairness by refusing broad discovery of Midbrook’s cost and banking records and by the appellate court reversing trial-court credibility findings | UFCMJRA requires only fundamental fairness (not full U.S. constitutional due process); Dutch courts provided targeted discovery and reasoned appellate review | Court held that §4(c)(8) requires only fundamental fairness; Dutch proceedings met that standard, so recognition is required |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying Rule 56(d) discovery requests for Midbrook’s underlying cost and bank records in the U.S. proceeding | Additional discovery was necessary to show the Dutch proceedings were unfair and to rebut the judgment | The requested discovery was irrelevant to whether the Dutch proceedings were fundamentally fair under UFCMJRA §4(c)(8); thus not essential to oppose summary judgment | Court held denial of Rule 56(d) relief was not an abuse of discretion because the sought facts were not essential to the narrow recognition issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review in recognition of foreign judgments under state law in federal diversity cases)
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1895) (classic statement on recognition of foreign judgments emphasizing basic fairness and opportunity to be heard)
- Society of Lloyd’s v. Ashenden, 233 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 2000) (application of an international/fundamental fairness standard to foreign-judgment recognition)
- Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2008) (requirements for obtaining discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d))
- DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Expl., S.A., 804 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2015) (discussion of fundamental fairness standard under state foreign-judgment recognition statutes)