William Hawkins v. i-TV Digitalis Tavkozlesi Zrt.
935 F.3d 211
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 2007 five U.S. plaintiffs obtained a default judgment (money damages plus injunctive and declaratory relief) against Hungarian businessman László Borsy and related companies, including i-TV, ordering transfer of majority interests and restraining asset dispositions.
- Defendants defaulted after limited participation; i-TV appeared during the original proceedings but later failed to defend, producing the default judgment; no direct appeals were taken from that judgment.
- Plaintiffs struggled to collect on the judgment abroad and in 2017 sought to enforce it against i-TV and several foreign entities (DIGI kft., RCS & RDS S.A., DIGI Communications N.V., RCS Management S.A., and individual Teszári) that had acquired i-TV.
- Respondents objected to personal jurisdiction; district court nonetheless allowed extensive discovery and then, after Respondents and i-TV raised a subject-matter-jurisdiction defect (whether Hungarian Peterfia kft. is an LLC-like entity destroying diversity), vacated the 2007 default judgment under Rule 60(b)(4).
- Plaintiffs appealed the Rule 60(b)(4) vacatur; Respondents cross-appealed the district court’s order permitting discovery despite their personal-jurisdiction objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2007 default judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Judgment valid because there was an arguable basis for diversity (Peterfia could be treated as a corporation) | Judgment void because Peterfia kft. is like an LLC/unincorporated association, destroying complete diversity | Reversed vacatur: judgment not void — there was an arguable basis for jurisdiction in this Circuit; Rule 60(b)(4) relief improperly granted |
| Whether district court had personal jurisdiction over foreign Respondents for enforcement/contempt proceedings | Aiding-and-abetting Borsy’s violation of injunction and successor-in-interest theories suffice to establish jurisdiction; aiding-and-abetting is a “super-contact” | Respondents lack minimum contacts with forum; foreign aiding-and-abetting alone is insufficient | District court lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign Respondents; they must be dismissed |
| Successor-in-interest theory to impute predecessor’s forum contacts | Respondents succeeded to defendants’ liabilities (imputing contacts) | Plaintiffs failed to preserve/plead an appropriate successor theory (attempts shifted on appeal) | Theory was waived/abandoned; cannot support jurisdiction on appeal |
| Whether aiding-and-abetting (Rule 65(d)(2)(C)) alone creates sufficient forum contacts (“super-contact”) for foreign nonparties | Waffenschmidt supports that aiding-and-abetting can be a sufficient contact | Waffenschmidt’s reasoning cannot be extended to foreign nonparties lacking forum contacts; due process/comity limit such reach | Rejected: aiding-and-abetting does not automatically establish minimum contacts for foreign nonparties absent forum-directed contacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (establishes rules for subject-matter-jurisdiction challenges post-judgment)
- Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410 (4th Cir.) (default-judgment voidness requires showing no arguable basis for jurisdiction)
- Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711 (5th Cir.) (aiding-and-abetting contempt theory; treating aiding as potential basis for jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (personal-jurisdiction "at home" / limits on general jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (forum effects and "express aiming" requirement for specific jurisdiction)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (nonparty contemnor must be made a party to contempt proceedings)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum-contacts due process standard)