China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

U.S. Court Recognizes a Chinese Judgement for the Third Time

Tue, 04 Feb 2020
Categories: Insights
Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌
Editor: C. J. Observer

 

The Case of Huizhi Liu is the third Chinese judgment recognized in the U.S. and the first in New York.

Correction: 19 April 2020

An earlier version of this post said that the case of Huizhi Liu is the (potentially) third Chinese judgment recognized in the US. That’s not correct. According to the updated version (2020) of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Glob. Material Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., No. 12 CV 1851 (N.D. Ill. May. 1, 2015) is the known second Chinese judgment recognized in the US, which renders the case of Qinrong Qiu and the case of Huizhi Liu, respectively, the third and the (potentially) fourth. More info about the case of Glob. Material Techs., Inc. is added at the very end of the post. We apologize for the error.

Update: 10 August 2022

An earlier correction dated 19 April 2020 said that the case of Huizhi Liu is the (potentially) fourth Chinese judgment recognized in the US. That’s not correct. According to the updated version (2021) of the List of China's Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments, KIC Suzhou Automotive Products Ltd. et al. v. Xia Xuguo, 2009 WL 10687812 (S.D. Ind. 2009) is the known first Chinese judgment recognized in the US, which renders the case of Huizhi Liu the (potentially) fifth. A brief history of Chinese judgments successfully recognized and enforced by US courts is added at the very end of the post.

On 6 Jan. 2020, New York Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered a ruling in Huizhi Liu vs Guoqing Guan & Xidong Fang, recognizing a judgment made by Xiangzhou Primary People’s Court of Zhuhai Municipality, China.  The case is now going to the Appellate Division for review.

(CJO Note: We would like to thank our reader Ms. Renee M Wong, who provided us with valuable information. Ms. Wong is an of counsel attorney with the law firm of Goldberger & Dubin, P.C. in New York, and represented the plaintiff, Ms. Huizhi Liu, in this very case.)

It marks the third time for the U.S court to recognize a Chinese judgment. Prior to this, two Chinese judgments were recognized respectively in the U.S. in 2009, and in 2016 (see below).

In the case, plaintiff Huizhi Liu sought enforcement of a foreign monetary judgment in the amount of CNY 17.6 million, exclusive of interest and legal fees, that was obtained in China.

On 14 May 2018, the plaintiff commenced an action sounding in breach of contract and unjust enrichment against defendants in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County (hereinafter “the Queens County Court”).

On 4 Jan. 2019, the Honorable Leonard Livote of the Court granted a conditional dismissal upon the ground of forum non conveniens, only if the defendants consented to the People's Republic of China and accepted service action brought on the same causes of action.

On 31 Jan. 2019, the parties subsequently executed a stipulation, wherein defendants consented to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China as the forum designated by the plaintiff.

Consequently, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against defendants before Xiangzhou Primary People’s Court of Zhuhai Municipality, Guangdong Province, China (hereinafter the “Chinese court”).

On 24 July 2019, the Chinese court granted judgment on default in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants, in the amount of RMB 17.6 million, with interest from 9 November 2017 to the date of payment at a monthly interest rate of 23. The Chinese judgment also provided that, if not satisfied within 10 days of service upon defendants’ any interest owed will be doubled, and that defendants shall pay RMB 159,800 in legal fees to the plaintiff.

The Queens County Court indicated, first of all, that “plaintiff's submissions demonstrate that the Chinese legal system comports with the due process requirements and the public policy of New York”.

Secondly, the Queens County Court pointed out that defendants, in the action before the Honorable Leonard Livote, argued that the interest of substantial justice would be best served by adjudication of the matter in the People's Republic of China, and they may not now cry foul.

Thirdly, the Queens County Court held that defendants were given ample notice and opportunity to be heard in the People's Republic of China, yet made the tactical decision to sit on their hands and allow a default judgment to be entered, even after the parties executed a stipulation consenting to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China.

Pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 5304 (b) (2), “[a] foreign country judgment need not be recognized if the defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend.” 

The Queens County Court held that “defendants' argument that non-recognition of the Chinese judgment is warranted under this discretionary ground is also unavailing. The evidence demonstrates that the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China was satisfied and that defendants were or should have been aware of the pending litigation in China”.

Therefore, the Queens County Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Chinese judgment.

***

Below is a brief history of Chinese judgments successfully recognized and enforced by US courts

  • On 6 Jan. 2020, in Huizhi Liu v. Guoqing Guan & Xidong Fang (713741/2019), the New York Supreme Court Queens County recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by the Xiangzhou Primary People’s Court of Zhuhai Municipality, Guangdong Province, China.
  • On 27 July 2017, in Qinrong Qiu v. Hongying Zhang et al(2:2017cv05446), the US District Court for the Central District of California recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by the Suzhou Industrial Park People's Court of Suzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province, China.
  • On 1 May 2015, in Glob. Material Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., No. 12 CV 1851 (N.D. Ill. May. 1, 2015), the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by Zhuhai Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong Province, China.
  • On 21 July 2009, in Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus. Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co., No. 2:06-CV-01798-FMCSSX, 2009 WL 2190187 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2009), aff’d, 425 F. App’x 580 (9th Cir. 2011), the US District Court for the Central District of California recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by the High People’s Court of Hubei Province, China.
  • On 3 June 2009, in KIC Suzhou Automotive Products Ltd. et al. v. Xia Xuguo, 2009 WL 10687812 (S.D. Ind. 2009), the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment.

 

The full text of the judgment is available here. An analysis is also available at Asia Business Law Institute.

 

Photo by jonathan riley(https://unsplash.com/@jonathan_christian_photography) on Unsplash

 

Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌

Save as PDF

You might also like

SPC Regulates Online Judicial Auctions

In November 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued new guidelines to regulate online judicial auctions, emphasizing transparency in property disclosures, enhanced mechanisms for judgment debtors to self-dispose of auctioned assets, and improved supervision across all auction stages to protect parties' rights and streamline enforcement procedures.

China’s First Tribunal-Ordered Interim Measure Issued in Beijing

In October 2024, an arbitral tribunal at the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC/BIAC) issued an interim measure based on the applicant’s request, which was later confirmed and enforced by the court through a preservation order. This is the first of its kind in China, confirming the validity of tribunal-issued interim measures and highlighting the pro-arbitration stance of Chinese courts.

SPC Releases IP Protection Cases in Seed Industry

In October 2024, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) released key judicial protection cases to strengthen intellectual property rights in the seed industry, focusing on plant variety and breeding material disputes.

China Defines Rules for Calculating Trademark Infringement Gains

In October 2024, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) jointly issued the “Measures for Calculating Illegal Business Revenue in Trademark Infringement Cases”, which provide detailed operational guidelines for trademark enforcement authorities to calculate illegal business revenue.

SPC Releases Typical Cases on Tourism Disputes

In September 2024, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) released five typical tourism dispute cases, including health rights disputes caused by wild monkey attacks in Mount Emei, to guide courts in resolving common tourism conflicts and safeguarding tourists' legitimate rights and interests.

China Regulates Network Data Security

China's newly adopted “Regulation on Network Data Security Management”, effective January 1, 2025, seeks to standardize data processing, strengthen personal information protection, and tackle issues such as data security, risk assessments, and personalized profiling.

Beijing & Shanghai Unveil Low-Altitude Economy Plans

Beijing and Shanghai have announced plans to develop the low-altitude economy, aiming to grow the industry to CNY 100 billion and CNY 50 billion respectively by 2027, with a focus on aerial rescue, logistics, and passenger transport.

SPC Releases Typical Antitrust Cases

In September 2024, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) published eight typical cases on antitrust and unfair competition, highlighting issues like price-fixing, market dominance abuse, and deceptive practices.