Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd. v. Chan
Filing
55
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 30 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENT. Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 9/28/2016. -The Court hereby GRANTS the motion for summary judgment, thereby recognizi ng and enforcing the Singapore Judgment against Chan for the following amounts converted to U.S. Dollars: 1. Damages in the amount of Singapore $1,168,450.00, which equates to United States $882,644.79 as of the date of the Singapore Judgme nt; 2. Pre-judgment interest in the sum of Singapore $189,898.10, asprovided in the Singapore Judgment, which equates to United States $143,448.64 as of the date of the Singapore Judgment; and 3. Costs and disbursements in the sum o f Singapore $13,562.58, which equates to United States $7,349.77 as of the date of the Singapore Judgment. 4. The request for post-judgment interest from the date of judgment entered under this motion at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) is GRANTED. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I
RESORTS WORLD AT SENTOSA
PTE LTD.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CV. NO. 15-00499 DKW-KJM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON ENFORCEMENT
OF FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENT
MICHELLE MAI CHAN,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Michelle Mai Chan incurred gambling debts to Plaintiff Resorts
World at Sentosa Pte Ltd. (“RWS”) in 2010. RWS now seeks to enforce a foreigncountry money judgment entered against Chan for the unpaid debts by the High
Court of the Republic of Singapore in 2015 (“Singapore Judgment”). The parties
dispute whether, under Singapore law, the default judgment entered against Chan
is final for purposes of enforcement under the Hawaii Uniform Foreign-Country
Money Judgments Recognition Act, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 658F-1 et
seq. Because the Singapore Judgment is final, conclusive, and enforceable under
Singapore law, RWS is entitled to summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
I.
Singapore Judgment
In 2014, RWS sued Chan in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore to
collect on a debt that Chan owed RWS. 5/3/16 Declaration of Shankar Angammah
Sevasamy (“5/3/16 Sevasamy Decl.”) ¶ 2. On May 13, 2015, the High Court of the
Republic of Singapore entered default judgment in favor of RWS and against
Chan, pursuant to Order 13 of the Singapore Rules of Court. The judgment was
for the principal amount of $1,168,450.00 in Singapore dollars, plus interest and
costs. Singapore Judgment, attached as Ex. 1 to Complaint (Dkt. No. 1-2). Once
entered, Chan could have sought to set aside the Singapore Judgment in the
Singapore Courts, but never did so. 5/3/16 Sevasamy Decl. ¶ 5; see also
Declaration of Lim Yin Sin Daniel (“Lim Decl.”) ¶ 6 (authenticating copy of Order
13).
II.
RWS Enforcement Action
On December 3, 2015, RWS filed its Complaint seeking recognition and
enforcement of the Singapore Judgment as a foreign-country money judgment
under Section 658F-6 of the Hawaii Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments
Recognition Act, HRS § 658F-1 et seq. (“Hawaii Recognition Act”). The Court
2
previously ruled that the High Court of the Republic of Singapore had both
personal jurisdiction over Chan and had subject matter jurisdiction over the matter,
resulting in the Singapore Judgment. See 4/18/16 Order (Dkt. No. 28). RWS now
seeks summary judgment in order to recognize and enforce its foreign-country
money judgment against Chan.1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party is entitled to
summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
A court may grant summary judgment in an action seeking to recognize and
enforce a foreign-country money judgment. See Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma, 723
F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in
action seeking enforcement of Japanese money judgment under California’s
Uniform Foreign–Country Money Judgments Recognition Act).
1
The Court acknowledges that the terms “recognition” and “enforcement” are distinct, but
primarily refers to enforcement of the Singapore Judgment throughout, as the distinction is not
pertinent for purposes of this order. See Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 987 (9th
Cir. 2013) (citing Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 481 cmt. b (1987))
(“Recognition of a judgment is a prerequisite to its enforcement. In recognizing a judgment, a
court acknowledges that a matter has been conclusively adjudicated and that the judgment may
have preclusive effect. In enforcing a judgment, a court ‘uses its coercive powers to order the
relief granted by the foreign court.’ Office of the Chief Counsel for International Commerce,
U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments
http://www.osec.doc.gov/ogc/occic/refmj.htm (last visited May 29, 2013).”).
3
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, the Court “treats foreign
law determinations as questions of law, not fact.” de Fontebrune v. Wofsy, No. 145790, slip op. at 9, 2016 WL 5349749, at *3 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2016).
DISCUSSION
I.
Recognition And Enforcement Of The Singapore Judgment
For purposes of summary judgment, the material facts concerning the
recognition of the Singapore Judgment are not contested. The parties dispute only
whether the Singapore Judgment, a default judgment entered pursuant to Order 13,
Rule 1 of the Singapore Rules of Court, is final, conclusive, and enforceable under
the law of Singapore. Because the Court concludes that it is, RWS’ motion for
summary judgment in GRANTED.
A.
Hawaii Recognition Act Framework And Findings
Under the Hawaii Recognition Act, the Court “shall recognize a foreigncountry judgment” where the requirements of the Act are met. HRS § 658F-4(a).
Section 658F-3 provides the following framework:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), this chapter
applies to a foreign-country judgment to the extent that the
judgment:
(1) Grants or denies recovery of a sum of money; and
(2) Under the law of the foreign country where rendered,
is final, conclusive, and enforceable.
****
4
(c) A party seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment
has the burden of establishing that this chapter applies to the
foreign-country judgment.
HRS § 658F-3.2 RWS has met this burden here.
2
On the other hand, the statute provides the following mandatory and discretionary grounds for
nonrecognition:
(b) A court of this State may not recognize a foreign-country judgment if:
(1) The judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does
not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the
requirements of due process of law;
(2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the
defendant; or
(3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
(c) A court of this State need not recognize a foreign-country judgment if:
(1) The defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not
receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the
defendant to defend;
(2) The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing
party of an adequate opportunity to present its case;
(3) The judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is
based is repugnant to the public policy of this State or of the
United States;
(4) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive
judgment;
(5) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an
agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question
was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in that foreign
court;
(6) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the
foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the
action;
(7) The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise
substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with
respect to the judgment; or
(8) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the
judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process
of law.
5
The Singapore Judgment states:
JUDGMENT UNDER O 13
No appearance having been entered by the defendant(s) herein,
it is this day adjudged that the defendant(s) do pay the
plaintiff(s):
1.
the sum of S$1,168,450.00;
2.
interest in the sum of S$189,898.10 as attached in the
Appendix herein pursuant to Clause (j) of the terms and
conditions of the Credit Agreement and the Credit
Facility Amendments until the date of judgment;
3.
costs and disbursements of S$13,562.58.
Singapore Judgment at 1.
First, the Singapore Judgment grants RWS recovery of a sum of money in
the amount of Singapore $1,168,450.00, interest in the sum of Singapore
$189,898.10, and costs and disbursements of Singapore $13,562.58, which RWS
calculates as totaling Singapore $1,371,910.00. See Singapore Judgment; RWS
Mem. in Supp. at 2, 6 (calculating judgment amount).
HRS § 658F-4(b)-(c). Under HRS § 658F-4(d), any “party resisting recognition of a foreigncountry judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in
subsection (b) or (c) exists.” Chan does not raise any of these grounds in opposition to the
motion for summary judgment. Moreover, for the reasons set forth in the motion and the
uncontroverted 5/3/16 Sevasamy Declaration, the Court finds no genuine issue of material fact
with respect to the grounds listed in Section 658F-4(b) or (c) that would prevent the entry of
summary judgment.
6
Second, as discussed more fully below, the Singapore Judgment is final,
conclusive, and enforceable under the law of the foreign country where rendered.3
The Court previously ruled that the High Court of the Republic of Singapore had
both personal jurisdiction over Chan and subject matter jurisdiction over the
matter, resulting in the Singapore Judgment. See 4/18/16 Order (Dkt. No. 28);
HRS § 658F-4(b). Accordingly, the Singapore Judgment is enforceable under the
Hawaii Recognition Act.
B.
The Singapore Judgment Is Final, Conclusive, And Enforceable
The parties do not dispute that RWS obtained the Singapore Judgment
pursuant to Order 13, Rule 1 of the Singapore Rules of Court. Order 13 provides
that a plaintiff may “enter final judgment against that defendant” if defendant fails
to enter an appearance in “the time limited for appearing.” See Lim Decl. Ex. 3;
Declaration of Low Wan Kwong Michael (“Low Decl.”) Ex. A. That is, by its
very terms, Order 13 describes a default judgment as a “final judgment” against a
non-appearing defendant, such as Chan.
3
Under the uniform law upon which the Hawaii Recognition Act is modeled:
A judgment is final when it is not subject to additional proceedings in the
rendering court other than execution. A judgment is conclusive when it is
given effect between the parties as a determination of their legal rights and
obligations. A judgment is enforceable when the legal procedures of the
state to ensure that the judgment debtor complies with the judgment are
available to the judgment creditor to assist in collection of the judgment.
Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, 13 U.L.A. 261 § 3 cmt. 3 (1986)
(“UFCMJRA”); see also HRS § 658F-1 (“This chapter may be cited as the Uniform ForeignCountry Money Judgments Recognition Act.”).
7
Chan, however, argues that a default judgment obtained under Order 13 is
not regarded as final, conclusive, and enforceable under Singapore law because it
is not a judgment on the merits entered by consent of the parties. See Mem. In
Opp. at 8-9 (citing Goh Nellie v. Goh Lian Teck and others, [2007] 1 SLR (R) 453
at ¶ 28 (High Court of Singapore Nov. 22, 2006)). She contends that, because the
Singapore Judgment is a default judgment, she has the right to seek to set it aside,
and, therefore, it is not final and conclusive.
Under Singapore law, a default judgment is final even though subject to
modification or variance. Chan points to Order 13, Rule 8, which provides that a
“Court may, on such terms as it thinks just, set aside or vary any judgment entered
in pursuance of this Order.” See Lim Decl. Ex. 3 at 14. Under the applicable law
of Singapore,4 however, default judgments are “final and conclusive” until set
aside:
In the case of Vanquelin v Bouard (1863) 15 CB (NS) 341; 143
ER 817 the defendant there sought to resist, in the Court of
Common Pleas, the enforcement of a French default judgment
that could be set aside as soon as the defendant entered an
appearance according to French law. Erle CJ made it clear that
until the defendant took steps to set it aside, the default
4
See LAWS OF SINGAPORE, The Singapore Legal System, Reception of English Law § 1.2.35
(“The Application of the English Law Act states that the common law of England (including the
principles and rules of equity), so far as it was part of the law of Singapore before 12 November
1993, shall continue to be part of the law of Singapore. Section 3 of the Act provides that the
common law, however, shall continue to be in force in Singapore as long as it is applicable to the
circumstances of Singapore and subject to such modifications as those circumstances may
require.”).
8
judgment was final and conclusive for the purpose of bringing
an action in England (at ER 828):
The twelfth plea, to the first count, alleges that the
judgment in the first count mentioned was a judgment by
default for want of an appearance by the defendant in the
court of the Tribunal of Commerce, and by the law of
France would become void as of course on an appearance
being entered. I apprehend that every judgment of a
foreign court of competent jurisdiction is valid, and may
be the foundation of an action in our courts, though
subject to the contingency, that, by adopting a certain
course, the party against whom the judgment is obtained
might cause it to be vacated or set aside. But, until that
course has been pursued, the judgment remains in full
force and capable of being sued upon. The Plaintiff,
therefore, must have judgment on the demurrer to this
plea.
Bellezza Club Japan Co Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko and others [2010] SGHC 94.
See also Dicey, Morris & Collins, The Conflict of Laws 577 (Sweet & Maxwell,
14th ed. 2006) (“[A] default judgment may, in this sense, be final and conclusive,
even though it is liable to be set aside, in the very court which rendered it.”) (citing
Vanquelin v Bouard (1863) 15 CB (N.S.) 341, 367-368).
Here, default judgment was entered against Chan and is “final and
conclusive” until set aside in Singapore – it “remains in full force and capable of
being sued upon.” See Bellezza Club Japan Co. at 23. To accept Chan’s argument
to the contrary would lead to the absurd result that no default judgment would ever
be final or enforceable. Such a rule would create a perverse disincentive under
which no defendant would ever defend or appear in Singapore courts because a
9
resulting default judgment would be indefinitely interlocutory and incapable of
being enforced. This cannot be the case.
Chan, moreover, has admittedly failed to even seek to set aside, modify, or
vary the Singapore Judgment, despite the sixteen months that have passed since its
May 2015 entry. While the parties agree that Order 13, Rule 8 contains no
explicit time limit for setting aside or varying a default judgment, an application to
set aside default “should be made promptly.” See Lim Decl. Ex. 3 at 14 (13/8/3
“Application to set aside regular judgment in default”). That standard can no
longer be met, given the passage of time, nor has Chan provided any reason for her
failure. See Ohno, 723 F.3d at 991.
Because Chan has not so much as applied to have the Singapore Judgment
set aside, it is final and conclusive under Singapore law. See Low Decl. ¶ 7.5 The
Singapore Judgment is also capable of being enforced against Chan in Singapore
pursuant to Order 45, Rule 1 of the Singapore Rules of Court because the judgment
resolved the entire claim. Low Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. C (Order 45, Rule 1).
5
Chan does not have the right to appeal the default judgment – her only remedy is an application
to set it aside. Low Decl. ¶ 7.
10
In sum, the Singapore Judgment is final, conclusive, and enforceable under
Singapore law. RWS has satisfied the requirements of HRS § 658F-3(a), and none
of the grounds for non-recognition set forth in HRS § 658F-4(b) or (c) apply.
Accordingly, RWS is entitled to summary judgment.
II.
Pre- And Post-Judgment Interest
RWS requests that the Singapore Judgment be converted into U.S. dollars,6
at the rate in effect on May 13, 2015, the date of the original judgment.7 The Court
grants the unopposed request.
RWS also requests pre- and post-judgment interest. The Singapore Court
included pre-judgment interest in its final judgment. Singapore Judgment at 1, 20-
6
See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 823(1)
(1987) (“Restatement”) (“Courts in the United States ordinarily give judgment on causes of
action arising in another state, or denominated in a foreign currency, in United States dollars, but
they are not precluded from giving judgment in the currency in which the obligation is
denominated or the loss was incurred.”). According to the Restatement, “a judgment in a foreign
currency should be issued only when requested by the judgment creditor[.]” Restatement § 823
cmt. b. See also Cont’l Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Fed. Gov’t of Nigeria, 932 F. Supp. 2d 153,
157-58 (D.D.C. 2013), aff’d, 603 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“Conversion of such foreign
currency amounts into dollars at judgment is the norm, rather than the exception.”); Elite
Entertainment, Inc. v. Khela Bros. Entertainment Inc., 396 F. Supp. 2d 680, 694 (E.D. Va. 2005)
(“[C]ourts ... agree that entering judgment in a foreign currency is strongly disfavored.”).
7
Because this cause of action arises under the Hawaii Recognition Act, the Court applies the
exchange rate from the date the cause of action accrued – May 13, 2015 – the date the Singapore
Judgment issued. See Cont’l Transfert Technique Ltd., 932 F. Supp. 2d at 161-62 (holding in
action under Federal Arbitration Act and Uniform Foreign–Money Judgment Recognition Act
that, “[b]ecause [plaintiff] had a cause of action under U.S. law as soon as the arbitral award
issued, the ‘breach day’ rule applies”). See also Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Samaraneftegaz, 592
F. App’x 8, 12 (2d Cir. 2014) (“As for the conversion date, under federal law, the pertinent date
is determined by the law creating the relevant cause of action. If the cause of action arose under
domestic law, the exchange rate from the date the cause of action accrued should be used. See
Hicks v. Guinness, 269 U.S. 71, 80–81, 46 S.Ct. 46, 70 L.Ed. 168 (1925).”).
11
21. Accordingly, in granting summary judgment with respect to the enforcement
of the Singapore Judgment, pre-judgment interest is necessarily included.
Post-judgment interest8 accrues from the date of judgment of this Court at
the rate of interest specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).9 RWS’ unopposed request for
post-judgment interest is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for
summary judgment, thereby recognizing and enforcing the Singapore Judgment
against Chan for the following amounts converted to U.S. Dollars:
1.
Damages in the amount of Singapore $1,168,450.00, which equates to
United States $882,644.79 as of the date of the Singapore Judgment;
8
Post-judgment interest is determined by federal law. Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int’l Mktg., S.A.,
842 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 1988); Jou v. Adalian, 2015 WL 477268, at *7 n.7 (D. Haw. Feb.
5, 2015).
9
This section provides:
(a) Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case
recovered in a district court. Execution therefor may be levied by the
marshal, in any case where, by the law of the State in which such court is
held, execution may be levied for interest on judgments recovered in the
courts of the State. Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the
entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year
constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date
of the judgment. The Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts shall distribute notice of that rate and any changes in it to all
Federal judges.
28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
12
2.
Pre-judgment interest in the sum of Singapore $189,898.10, as
provided in the Singapore Judgment, which equates to United States
$143,448.64 as of the date of the Singapore Judgment; and
3.
Costs and disbursements in the sum of Singapore $13,562.58, which
equates to United States $7,349.77 as of the date of the Singapore Judgment.
4.
The request for post-judgment interest from the date of judgment
entered under this motion at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2016 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd. v. Chan; CV 15-00499 DKW-KJM; ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENT
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?