Julen v. Larson

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Martin Julen (plaintiff) doing business as Julen-Sport in Zermatt, Switzerland, filed a complaint against Phillip G. Larson (defendant) and Robert La Place predicated on a money judgment rendered

[327]

by a Swiss court of general jurisdiction in connection with the sale of goods. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1713-1713.8, the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act.) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court on the principal ground that the service of Swiss process was not “reasonably calculated” to give defendant notice of the action which resulted in the Swiss judgment. (See

Mullane

v.

Central Hanover Tr. Co.,

339 U.S. 306 [94 L.Ed. 865, 70 S.Ct. 652].)

The merits of the controversy which resulted in the foreign judgment are not before us. Prior to the entry of the Swiss judgment, defendant received two letters dated 3 March and 16 June 1965 by certified mail from the Consulate General of Switzerland in San Francisco. Neither letter gave notice of the nature of the documents which it enclosed.

1

We take judicial notice that the enclosures were documents in the German language. (Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (f).)

Defendant’s affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment states: “I do not read German,” and the counteraffidavit tacitly admits this claim. Further, defendant avers he was not apprised of the contents of the documents, and although the counteraffidavit asserts that defendant was generally aware that plaintiff intended to take legal action against him, it does not suggest that defendant knew what the documents were or how or where they originated.

To be recognized and enforced in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state entitled to full faith and credit, a foreign money judgment must be conclusive. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1713.2, 1713.3.) It is not conclusive if the foreign court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1713.4.) Here personal jurisdiction over defendant was claimed on the ground that defendant had been doing business in Switzerland and had thereby subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Swiss courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1713.5, subd. (b).) Assuming the validity of this claim (cf.