global impact on arizona soil: recognition and enforcement ... · global impact on arizona soil:...

w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g

Instead, courts in the United States look tothe laws of the state in which recognition issought (among others) to determinewhether the foreign judgment will beenforced.4

In Arizona, courts rely on the commonlaw principles of comity to determinewhether to recognize and enforce a foreignjudgment.5

This article provides an overview of thestate’s procedures for domesticating for-eign judgments. It addresses the distinc-tion between recognition and enforcementof a foreign judgment, the requirementsfor recognition and enforcement of such ajudgment and possible defenses, and thelegal effect of having a court grant or denyrecognition of a foreign judgment.

Recognition VersusEnforcement

The recognition of a foreign judgmentand the enforcement of a foreign judg-

ment are two distinct concepts.Recognition of a foreign judgment

“occurs when a court precludes litigationof a claim or issue because that claim orissue was previously litigated in the courtof a foreign nation.”6 Once a foreign judg-ment is recognized, it is entitled to thesame preclusive effects as a recognizedjudgment from a sister-state court.Therefore, recognition is key, for it maypreclude the re-litigation of certain issuesin U.S. courts.

By contrast, enforcement of a foreignjudgment in the United States occurswhen a court, upon request of a prevailingparty, requires the losing party to satisfythe judgment.7 A court in the UnitedStates cannot enforce a foreign judgmentuntil it has been recognized. However,simply because a court recognizes a for-eign judgment does not mean that it willbe enforced.

For example, courts generally do not

24 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 7

International trade with the UnitedStates continues to grow at an explo-sive pace. In May 2006 alone, U.S.exports and imports of goods andservices increased $5.9 billion fromthe previous month.1 Arizona’s econ-omy echoes this trend and, in recentyears, international business in thestate has increased dramatically.Worldwide exports from Arizona in

2005 totaled $14.9 billion, an 11.37 per-cent increase from 2004.2

As a result of this growth in interna-tional business, companies with assets inArizona are frequently involved in disputesbefore courts in other countries.Increasingly, such disputes result in effortsto obtain recognition and enforcement ofthe foreign court’s judgment in Arizona.Currently, there is no bilateral treaty ormultilateral international convention thataddresses the recognition and enforcementof foreign judgments in the United States.3

BY BARB DAWSON, NATE KUNZ & ANDREW HARDENBROOK

Global Impact on Arizona Soil: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Arizona

w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g 25

enforce judgments that grant injunctions,declare rights or determine status, orjudgments arising from attachments ofproperty.8 As a practical matter, counseltherefore should consider whether a for-eign judgment is enforceable in theUnited States before seeking its recogni-tion.

Recognition and EnforcementRequirements

Arizona uses the Restatement (Third) ofthe Foreign Relations Law of the UnitedStates (“Restatement”) as a framework foranalyzing whether to recognize a foreignjudgment.9 The Restatement provides astrong presumption in favor of recogni-tion of a foreign judgment.10 Thus, thecourt will presume that a foreign judg-ment is conclusive between the parties andentitled to recognition, unless it is chal-lenged.11 To receive this presumption, theparty seeking recognition must: (1) time-

ly file the action to enforce the foreignjudgment; (2) establish that the U.S.court has jurisdiction over the action; and(3) demonstrate that the foreign judg-ment is final.

Statute of Limitations

There are two critical time limits for thedomestication of a foreign judgment inArizona.

First, Arizona law prevents a plaintifffrom filing an enforcement action if suchan action would be time-barred in the ren-dering country.12

Second, regardless of the renderingcountry’s time bar, Arizona places a four-year statute of limitations on the enforce-ment of a foreign judgment.13 Thus, aparty has at most four years to enforce aforeign judgment in Arizona, and evenless time if the rendering nation’s rules aremore restrictive. These time limits bar theenforcement of a foreign judgment even if

the filing of an action to enforce a similardomestic judgment would have beenallowed.14

Regardless of the Arizona law govern-ing domestic judgments, counsel must filethe action to enforce a foreign judgmentbefore either of the two periods expires.

Jurisdiction Over Enforcement Actions

The court’s jurisdiction over an enforce-ment action is broader than in ordinarycivil actions.15

For example, the court ordinarily mayhave jurisdiction to hear a claim if thedefendant owns property within the stateand that property is related to the underly-ing claim. However, in an enforcementaction, the court may have jurisdictioneven if the defendant’s property within thestate is unrelated to the claim.16 As long asa defendant owns property in Arizona, thecourt likely has jurisdiction to adjudicatethe enforcement action.17

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 7 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y

d Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Arizona

Barb Dawson is a litigation partner in Snell & Wilmer LLP’sPhoenix office. She is active in the international affiliation oflaw firms, Lex Mundi, for which she serves on the Board of

Directors and as a North American Vice-Chair for its DisputeResolution Committee.

Nate Kunz is a recent graduate of University of DenverSturm College of Law. He is an associate at Snell & Wilmer

LLP, practicing litigation in its Phoenix office.

Andrew Hardenbrook is a third-year law student atVanderbilt University Law School. He will be joining the

Arizona Court of Appeals as a law clerk after graduation.

“Final” Judgments

The court will only recognize and enforce aforeign judgment if it is final. A judgmentis final when it is ready for execution and isno longer subject to additional proceed-ings.18 Therefore, both default judgmentsand judgments on the merits will be recog-nized and enforced, if they are the finaljudgments of a foreign court.19 Moreover,judgments can be considered final even ifthey are subject to appeal or later modifica-tion. However, if an appeal is in progress inthe rendering country, the Arizona courtlikely will stay the proceeding until theappeal is completed.20

To determine whether a foreign judg-ment is final, the court examines the laws ofthe rendering country.21 For example, inAlberta Securities Commission v. Ryckman,22

the plaintiff sought recognition of an orderfrom an Alberta court. In that case, theArizona court examined the AlbertaSecurities Act to determine whether theorder was a final judgment. Because theAlberta Securities Act considers theseorders to be equivalent to a judgment fromthe Court of the Queen’s Bench, theArizona court held that the order wasfinal.23 Thus, counsel should rely on thelaws of the rendering country to establishthat the foreign judgment is final.

Non-Recognition of aForeign Judgment

A court can deny recognition or enforce-ment of a foreign judgment on severalgrounds. The Restatement provides bothmandatory and discretionary grounds fornon-recognition.24 In addition, some courtshave denied recognition on the basis of rec-iprocity.

Mandatory Grounds For Non-Recognition

There are two mandatory grounds for non-recognition: (1) the foreign tribunal didnot possess jurisdiction; or (2) the foreigntribunal lacked adequate procedural dueprocess.25

Jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction is themost common reason for denying recogni-tion of a foreign judgment.26 Generally,jurisdiction is determined by examining thelaws of the state in which recognition issought. Thus, an Arizona court will denyrecognition of a foreign judgment if therendering court lacked jurisdiction underArizona’s long-arm statute.

Arizona’s long-arm statute confers juris-diction to the fullest extent possible underfederal law.27 A defendant is subject to gen-eral jurisdiction if his contacts within theforum country are “substantial or continu-ous and systematic enough that the defen-dant may be haled into court in the forum,even for claims unrelated to the defendant’scontacts within the forum.”28

Alternatively, a defendant may be sub-ject to specific jurisdiction if: “(1) thedefendant purposefully avails himself of theprivilege of conducting business in theforum; (2) the claim arises out of conduct-ing business in the forum; and (3) the exer-cise of jurisdiction is reasonable.”29

Accordingly, if the foreign court wouldhave had jurisdiction under Arizona law,the judgment will withstand a jurisdictionalchallenge.

Counsel also can overcome a jurisdic-tional challenge by showing that the partyis precluded from raising it before theArizona court. For example, if a partyappears before a foreign tribunal and has anopportunity to but fails to challenge itsjurisdiction, it potentially has waived theright to assert this challenge in later pro-ceedings.30 In that case, a strong argumentexists that the party cannot re-litigate theforeign court’s jurisdiction in the UnitedStates.

However, courts are split regardingwhether a foreign court’s determination ofjurisdiction will have a res judicata effect inthe United States.31 This situation ariseswhen a party unsuccessfully challenges theforeign court’s jurisdiction in the renderingcountry and then challenges its jurisdiction

again before a U.S. court. Some states holdthat the foreign court’s determination pre-cludes a party from asserting a jurisdiction-al challenge in the United States, whereasothers will re-litigate the issue.32

Because Arizona has not addressed howit will treat the jurisdictional rulings of for-eign courts, counsel should be prepared todefend against a jurisdictional challenge,even if its client prevailed against a similarchallenge before a foreign tribunal.

Due Process. The court also can denyrecognition and enforcement of a foreignjudgment based on a lack of due process inthe foreign proceedings. The court willexamine whether the foreign country pro-vided the defendant with “an opportunityfor a hearing that comports with basic dueprocess principles before a court of compe-tent jurisdiction.”33 Thus, if the foreigncourt did not possess adequate proceduresto ensure a fundamentally fair and impartialproceeding, the court will deny recognitionof its judgment.

The due process standard does notrequire a foreign tribunal to adopt the sameprocedures as those used in the courts ofArizona or the United States.34 For exam-ple, in Hilton v. Guyot,35 the party contest-ed the enforcement of a French court’sjudgment. There, the French court intro-duced evidence generally not admitted inU.S. courts, allowed the parties to testifynot under oath, and provided no cross-examination.36 Despite these differences,the United States Supreme Court rejectedthe party’s assertions that the French courtlacked adequate due process standards.Therefore, unless a foreign court’s proce-dures are fundamentally unfair, a U.S.court will not deny recognition of its judg-ment merely because it uses different pro-cedures.

However, if the defendant did notreceive notice of the proceedings, a courtwill deny recognition of the foreign judg-ment based on a lack of due process. For

w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g26 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 7

The court can deny recognitionand enforcement of a

foreign judgment based on a lack of the process in the

foreign proceedings.Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Arizona

example, in Rotary Club of Tucson v. Ramosde Pena,37 the defendant did not receivenotice of the Mexican proceeding. Becausethe defendant did not have an opportunityto participate in the hearing, the court heldthat he was denied due process of law.38

Therefore, the court denied recognition ofthe Mexican judgment in Arizona courts.Accordingly, in order to protect the validi-ty of a foreign judgment, counsel shouldensure that the defendant receives notice ofthe foreign proceedings.

Discretionary Grounds for Non-Recognition

Courts also possess several discretionarygrounds for denying recognition andenforcement of a foreign judgment.39 Aswith the mandatory grounds, the partyseeking non-recognition based on discre-tionary grounds typically carries the burdenof proof.40

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Acourt may deny recognition and enforce-ment of a judgment if the foreign courtlacked subject matter jurisdiction over theaction. U.S. courts generally presume thatthe foreign court possessed subject matterjurisdiction, unless the foreign judgmentaffects a party’s right to land in the UnitedStates or rights to a U.S. patent, trademarkor copyright.41 Moreover, a party that failsto raise a challenge to subject matter juris-diction before a foreign tribunal is likelyprecluded from challenging it in U.S.courts. Accordingly, parties rarely raisechallenges based on a lack of subject matterjurisdiction in opposing recognition of for-eign judgments.

Failure To Provide Adequate Notice. Inits discretion, a court also may deny recog-nition if the defendant did not receive ade-quate notice. If the rendering country is asignatory to the Hague Service Convention(“Convention”),42 the notice should com-ply with the methods proscribed within theConvention.43 If the country is not a party

to the Convention, then the court willexamine whether the notice was “reason-ably calculated, under all the circumstances,to apprise interested parties of the penden-cy of the action and afford them an oppor-tunity to present their objections.”44

Generally, courts consider both serviceof process by registered mail45 and personalservice46 as adequate methods of servingnotice. However, because adequate noticedepends upon the surrounding circum-stances, the court’s holding will vary on acase-by-case basis.

Judgments Obtained by Fraud. A courtalso may deny recognition of a judgmentthat was obtained by fraud, but only extrin-sic fraud.47 Extrinsic fraud occurs when theopposing side or a third party deprives thelosing party of an adequate opportunity topresent its case.48

In contrast, intrinsic fraud occurs whena party falsifies documents or a witnesscommits perjury.49 Because a party canassert challenges based on intrinsic fraud inthe rendering country, U.S. courts do notrecognize this as grounds for denyingrecognition. Accordingly, unless the partyopposing recognition presents proof ofextrinsic fraud, the court will not denyrecognition of a foreign judgment based onfraud.50

Judgment Is Repugnant to Public

Policy. A court also may conclude that aforeign judgment is repugnant to Arizona’spublic policy.51 Historically, Arizona has nar-rowly interpreted this exception.

For example, in Hashim v. Hashim,52 thecourt reviewed a bankruptcy court’s deci-sion to deny recognition of a foreign judg-ment. The bankruptcy court concluded thatthe enforcement of potentially oppressiveattorneys’ fees would be repugnant toArizona’s public policy.53 On appeal, thecourt overturned the bankruptcy court’sdecision, holding that “Arizona law wouldnot support the bankruptcy court’s order

denying comity to the English court’saward even if the award were to amount to$10 million.”54 Thus, except in extremecases, Arizona courts will reject challengesto judgment based on these grounds.

Judgment Conflicts With the

Judgments of Other Courts. Arizonacourts also may deny recognition of a for-eign judgment if it conflicts with a judg-ment of another court.55 Conflicts can existbetween the judgments of two foreigncourts or between the judgments of a for-eign court and a U.S. court.

Under the Restatement’s last-in-timerule, the U.S. court generally adopts the lat-ter of the two conflicting judgments.56

Arizona, however, has not held if it willadopt the last-in-time rule.57

Proceeding Is Contrary to an Agreement

Between the Parties. A court can denyrecognition if the foreign proceeding wascontrary to an agreement between the par-ties.58 This ordinarily occurs in contract dis-putes where the parties have agreed to set-tle disputes in a specific forum. Courts gen-erally respect a party’s rights under an arbi-tration clause or forum selection clause.Therefore, if a party uses a court that differsfrom the forum expressed in the contract orcontrary to an enforceable arbitration provi-sion, the court will probably deny recogni-tion of that court’s judgment.

However, the court may conclude thatthe parties are precluded from assertingtheir rights under a contract. For example,courts consider a party that participates inan action to have waived its right to contesta forum, unless participation is to protectproperty under attachment or arrest.59

Moreover, if the foreign court determinesthat a party has waived its rights to theforum expressed in the agreement, this deci-sion will likely have a binding effect in U.S.courts. Thus, under these circumstances,the court will likely reject challenges to aspecific forum.


A court may conclude that a foreign judgment

is repugnant to Arizona’s public policy.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Arizona


L. REV. 147, 147-48 (2001)[hereinafter Enforcement andRecognition Symposium].

7. Id.8. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE

UNITED STATES § 481 cmt. b.9. Ryckman, 30 P.3d at 126

(approving §§ 481 and 482).10. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF


UNITED STATES § 481 cmt. b.11. Id. § 481(1).12. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-549

(2004).13. Id. § 12-544(3).14. See Citibank (S.D.) v. Phifer, 887

P.2d 5, 6 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994)(“Filing a judgment after expira-tion of the statute of limitationsperiod for the enforcement of[California] judgments does notentitle the holder to the extend-ed time limits enjoyed for theenforcement of domestic judg-ments.”).

15. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF

FOREIGN RELATIONS § 481 cmt.h.

16. Id. (“[A]n action to enforce ajudgment may usually bebrought wherever property of

the Defendant is found, withoutany necessary connectionbetween the underlying actionand the property or between theDefendant and the forum.”).

17. See Huggins v. Deinhard, 654P.2d 32, 37 (Ariz. Ct. App.1982) (finding quasi in rem juris-diction based on defendant’sbank account in Arizona).

18. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF

FOREIGN RELATIONS § 481 cmt.e.

19. E.g., Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d862 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (enforcingthe default judgment of an Israelicourt); John Sanderson & Co. v.Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696(1st Cir. 1978) (enforcing thedefault judgment of an Australiancourt); see also Enforcement andRecognition Symposium, supranote 6, at 152-54.

20. See Enforcement and RecognitionSymposium, supra note 6, at 152-54.

21. Id.; see also Samyang Food Co.,Ltd. v. Pneumatic Scale Corp.,No. 5:05-CV-636, 2005 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 25374, *1, at *26-27(N.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2005)(interpreting Korean statutes,

1. Press Release, U.S. Bureau ofEconomic Analysis and U.S.Census Bureau, Trade GapWidens in May 2006: U.S.International Trade in Goods andServices (July 12, 2006),www.bea.gov/bea/glance.htm.

2. Arizona Department ofCommerce, Arizona ExportStatistics,www.azcommerce.com/itrade(click “Arizona Export Statistics”)(last visited Sept. 5, 2006).



UNITED STATES § 481 cmt. a(1987) (“[I]n the absence of afederal statute or treaty or someother basis for federal jurisdiction… recognition and enforcementof foreign country judgments is amatter of State law.”).

4. Id.5. See Alta. Sec. Comm’n v.

Ryckman, 30 P.3d 121, 126(Ariz. Ct. App. 2001); Hashim v.Hashim, 213 F.3d 1169, 1172(9th Cir. 2000) (interpretingArizona law).

6. Symposium, Enforcement andRecognition of Foreign Judgmentsin United States Courts, 29 PEPP.

decision of the Korean SupremeCourt, and intermediary courtsto determine whether the deci-sion is final).

22. 30 P.3d 121, 124-25 (Ariz. Ct.App. 2001).

23. Id.24. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF

FOREIGN RELATIONS § 482(1987).

25. Id. § 482(1).26. Id. § 482 cmt. c.27. Williams v. Lakeview Co., 13 P.3d

280, 282 (Ariz. 2000).28. Id. (citing Helicopteros Nacionales

de Columbia S.A. v. Hall, 466U.S. 408, 414 (1984)).

29. Id. (citing Shute v. CarnivalCruise Lines, 897 F.2d 377, 381(9th Cir. 1991)).


FOREIGN RELATIONS § 482 cmt.c.

31. Id.32. Id.; see also Enforcement and

Recognition Symposium, supranote 6, at 155-56 (discussing thevarious methods that courts useto treat a challenge to jurisdic-tion that was already litigatedand decided by the foreigncourt).

ReciprocityHistorically, some states also have a reci-procity requirement. There, a party seekingrecognition must demonstrate that the ren-dering country would recognize the judg-ment of a U.S. court if the circumstanceswere reversed.

The seminal case addressing this issue isHilton v. Guyot.60 There, the SupremeCourt concluded that France would notrecognize a similar U.S. judgment in itscourts.61 Therefore, the Court deniedrecognition of the French judgment. Thus,if a state has a reciprocity requirement, theparty seeking recognition must prove reci-procity, even if the judgment is otherwiserecognizable.

Though Arizona courts have notaddressed this issue, it is unlikely that theywill adopt a reciprocity requirement, for afew reasons.

First, the Restatement advocates doingaway with the reciprocity requirement, stat-ing that an otherwise recognizable judg-ment should not be denied because the“courts in the rendering state might not

enforce a judgment of a court in the UnitedStates if the circumstances were reversed.”62

Moreover, commentators have heavily crit-icized the requirement because: (1) it failsto achieve its goal of protecting Americans;(2) the parties in the litigation have no con-trol over the acts of the foreign country;and (3) it ignores the policy underlying therecognition and enforcement of foreignjudgments, which is to put an end to litiga-tion.63

For these reasons, the current trendamong the states is to reject the reciprocityrequirement.64 Accordingly, Arizona willprobably not require a showing of reciprocitybefore it will recognize a foreign judgment.

ConclusionRecognition

After a foreign judgment is recognized,courts will give it the same preclusive effectas a recognized judgment of a sister-statecourt. Under Arizona law, a foreign court’sjudgment has no greater effect in Arizonathan it does in the rendering country.65

Therefore, if the judgment is subject to col-

lateral attacks in the rendering country,then it is subject to the same attacks inArizona.66 Accordingly, counsel should beaware of how the foreign judgment is treat-ed in the rendering country to determinewhether it will be subject to an attack afterit is recognized.

Non-Recognition

The effects of non-recognition varydepending on the court’s rationale for notrecognizing the foreign judgment. Forexample, if a court denies recognitionbased on unfairness of the foreign judicialsystem, unfair procedures, fraud or lack ofjurisdiction, then a party cannot use theforeign judgment for any purpose in theUnited States.67 In contrast, if the courtrefuses to recognize the foreign judgmentfor any other reason, the foreign judgmentmay be admitted as evidence.68 However,this evidence is nonbinding, and an oppos-ing party may introduce evidence to thecontrary. Accordingly, the court’s reasonsfor denying recognition may affect the par-ties in later proceedings.

endnotes

AZAT

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Arizona

Extrajudicial Documents in Civilor Commercial Matters, Feb.10, 1969, 20 U.S.T. 361.

43. See Enforcement and RecognitionSymposium, supra note 6, at155-56.

44. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank& Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306,314-15 (1950).

45. Roy v. Buckley, 698 A.2d 497,502-03 (Me. 1997).

46. Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d862, 864-65 (D.C. Cir. 1981).


FOREIGN RELATIONS § 482 cmt. e (1987).

48. Id.49. Id.50. Ryckman, 30 P.3d at 127.51. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF

FOREIGN RELATIONS § 482 cmt. f.

52. 213 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2000)(interpreting Arizona law).

53. Id. at 1172.54. Id.55. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF

FOREIGN RELATIONS § 482 cmt.g.

56. Id.57. Cf. Porter v. Porter, 416 P.2d

564 (Ariz. 1966) (Not recogniz-ing an Idaho decision that didnot give full faith and credit to a

prior Arizona decision, theCourt stated, “A foreign judg-ment will not be given greatereffect than a domestic judgmenton the same issue.”).


FOREIGN RELATIONS § 482 cmt.h.

59. Id.60. 159 U.S. 113 (1895).61. Id. at 228.62. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF

FOREIGN RELATIONS § 481 cmt. d.

63. R. Doak Bishop & SusanBurnette, United States PracticeConcerning the Recognition ofForeign Judgments, 16 INT’LLAW. 425, 435-36 (1982).

64. See e.g., De la Mata v. Am. LifeIns. Co., 771 F. Supp. 1375,1382-83 (D. Del. 1991); Nicolv. Tanner, 256 N.W.2d 796, 801(Minn. 1976).

65. Springfield Credit Union v.Johnson, 599 P.2d 772, 776(Ariz. 1979) (interpretingBarber v. Barber, 323 U.S. 77(1944)).

66. Cf. Schoenbrod v. Siegler, 230N.E.2d 638, 641 (N.Y. 1967)(holding that foreign judgmentcould be collaterally attackedbecause Mexico’s principles of

33. Ryckman, 30 P.3d at 126;Rotary Club of Tucson v. Ramosde Pena, 773 P.2d 467, 469-70(Ariz. Ct. App. 1989); SouthwestLivestock & Trucking Co. v.Ramon, 169 F.3d 317, 321 (5thCir. 1999).

34. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113,202 (1895); Glaverbel SocieteAnonyme v. Northlake Marketing& Supply, Inc., No. 2: 96-CV-32-TS, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

18820, at *1, *13-16 (N.D.Ind. Mar. 31, 1998) (concludingthat discovery in Belgian courtswas fundamentally fair eventhough it differed fromAmerican discovery).

35. 159 U.S. at 113.36. Id. at 204-05.37. 773 P.2d at 467.38. Id. at 470.39. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF

FOREIGN RELATIONS § 482(2)(1987).

40. See id. § 481(1); Ryckman, 30P.3d at 127 (concluding thatdefendant’s averments failed toestablish a triable issue of fact).


FOREIGN RELATIONS § 481 cmt.d.

42. Hague Convention on theService Abroad of Judicial and

res judicata would such anattack).


FOREIGN RELATIONS § 482 cmt.i.

68. Id.