Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13496
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Ohno, a Japanese citizen and former member of Saints of Glory Church, obtained final Japanese judgments awarding restitution and damages after Tokyo courts found church leaders induced her—while suffering depression and ataxia—to transfer nearly all her assets.
- Ohno sought recognition and enforcement of the Japanese money judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under California’s Uniform Foreign‑Country Money Judgments Recognition Act.
- The Church (Yasuma and Saints of Glory) argued enforcement would violate the Free Exercise Clause (U.S. and California Constitutions) and asked the court to refuse recognition as the judgment is "repugnant to public policy," also raising due process (now abandoned on appeal).
- The district court granted summary judgment enforcing the Japanese judgment; the Church appealed, arguing (1) enforcement is state action subject to constitutional scrutiny and (2) the judgment is repugnant to U.S./California public policy under §1716(c)(3).
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether (a) domestic enforcement of a foreign money judgment constitutes state action that triggers Free Exercise review, and (b) whether the underlying cause of action or the judgment is so contrary to U.S./California public policy that California’s Uniform Act permits (or requires) non‑recognition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ohno) | Defendant's Argument (Church) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S. court enforcement of the Japanese money judgment is "state action" subject to the Religion Clauses | Enforcement is a ministerial recognition under the Uniform Act; state action not directly contested by Ohno | Enforcement by a domestic court is state action that subjects the underlying foreign judgment to constitutional constraints | Not state action as to the substance of the foreign court’s decision; enforcement did not transform the Japanese judgment into domestic governmental action |
| Whether the Japanese judgment (or underlying cause of action) is "repugnant to public policy" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1716(c)(3)) | Japanese tort causes and judgment mirror recognized tort remedies; enforcement is required absent a valid non‑recognition ground | Judgment violates the Religion Clauses and thus is repugnant and should not be recognized | Judgment and cause of action are not so antagonistic to U.S./CA public policy as to be repugnant; recognition affirmed |
| Whether a similar domestic judgment would necessarily be unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause | N/A (Ohno seeks enforcement; does not claim domestic unconstitutionality) | A parallel domestic tort judgment imposing liability for religiously motivated teachings would violate Free Exercise | Court declined to decide whether a parallel domestic judgment would be unconstitutional; found the question debatable and therefore not qualifying for repugnancy refusal |
| Standard of review for repugnancy determination | District court’s legal conclusion should be reviewed de novo | If discretionary, district court decision should be reviewed for abuse of discretion | Treated as a legal conclusion reviewed de novo; even under deferential review result would stand because legal error would control |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (federal framework for attributing private conduct to the State)
- Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (judicial enforcement of private racially restrictive covenants can be state action)
- Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir.) (application of domestic tort law to religious conduct can constitute state action when grounded in state substantive law)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (substantive state tort law can trigger constitutional scrutiny when it regulates speech)
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (comity and principles underlying recognition of foreign judgments)
- Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n for Unification of World Christianity, 46 Cal.3d 1092 (California precedent on adjudicating tort claims against religious organizations and limits imposed by Religion Clauses)
- Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (neutral laws of general applicability and Free Exercise standard)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (distinguishing freedom to believe and to act; state may regulate conduct)
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (application of state law by courts can be treated as state action when it enforces domestic substantive rules)