26 F.4th 1129
9th Cir.2022Background
- Maria Corso (South Australia) obtained a default money judgment (AU$1,020,508.55) in the District Court of South Australia after Rejuvi Laboratory, Inc. (a California corporation) failed to file a defense to her product-liability suit arising from injuries from a tattoo-removal paste.
- Rejuvi sold products in Australia through an exclusive distributor (Arias Holdings), made limited Australian sales, and its CEO and trainer attended sales seminars in Australia.
- Corso sought recognition/enforcement of the Australian judgment in U.S. federal court (N.D. Cal.). Rejuvi answered and later filed bankruptcy. Corso filed a proof of claim based on the Australian judgment.
- Rejuvi sought relief in the South Australian court (application to set aside the default judgment) and appeared at a 2018 hearing; the District Court refused relief and Rejuvi appealed to the Supreme Court of South Australia but did not pursue the appeal.
- The bankruptcy court allowed Corso’s claim (applying Ninth Circuit personal-jurisdiction principles); the federal district court reversed, finding no personal jurisdiction in South Australia. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding Rejuvi waived its personal-jurisdiction objection by voluntarily appearing in the Australian proceedings to seek relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the South Australian judgment is nonrecognizable under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1716(b)(2) because the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction | Corso: Rejuvi voluntarily appeared in the Australian court seeking to set aside the default judgment, so it waived any jurisdictional objection | Rejuvi: The Australian court lacked personal jurisdiction because Rejuvi’s contacts were with Australia generally via a distributor, not with South Australia specifically; thus judgment should not be recognized | Held: Waiver — Rejuvi’s voluntary appearance to seek relief constituted submission and precluded a personal-jurisdiction defense under the Uniform Act |
| Whether Rejuvi’s application to set aside preserved a jurisdictional challenge as a special appearance under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1717(b)(2) | Corso: Rejuvi argued merits and service defects, not jurisdiction; so it exceeded what is permitted to preserve jurisdictional objections | Rejuvi: Its conduct challenging service/knowledge and filing an appeal preserved jurisdictional objections | Held: Rejected — challenging service or lack of notice is not the same as contesting jurisdiction; Rejuvi advanced merits-based arguments and thus lost the § 1717(b)(2) safe harbor |
| Whether the ‘seriously inconvenient forum’ exception (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1716(c)(1)(E)) prevents recognition | Corso: Not raised as dispositive; Australian court relied on causes arising in South Australia | Rejuvi: South Australia was a seriously inconvenient forum (argued) | Held: Not applicable — the exception applies only to jurisdiction based solely on personal service (tag jurisdiction), which was not the basis here |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (articulates the three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction)
- De Fontbrune v. Wofsky, 409 F. Supp. 3d 823 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (holding that initiating proceedings to vacate a foreign default judgment constituted a voluntary appearance that waived a personal-jurisdiction defense under the Uniform Act)
- CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Moral Hotel Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 215 (N.Y. 2003) (interpreting the Uniform Act to bar jurisdictional challenges once a defendant does more than preserve the objection)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Calderon, 422 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2005) (a party cannot present arguments on the merits and simultaneously complain the court lacks jurisdiction)
- Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing California’s application of the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act)