Baker and McKenzie Advokatbyra VS Thinkstream, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 2535 BAKER MCKENZIE ADVOKA TBYRA VERSUS f THINKSTREAM INCORPORATED JUN 1 9 2009 Judgment Rendered On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of East Baton Rouge Trial Court No 559 681 Honorable Timothy E Kelley Judge Presiding John C Enochs Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee New Orleans LA Baker Vincent J Booth Counsel for Defendant Appellant New Orleans LA Thinkstream McKenzie Advokatbyra Incorporated BEFORE PETTIGREW McDONALD AND HUGHES JJ HUGHES J This is an appeal by making executory made rendered in judgment a district a Oregon along with For the that follow Oregon court judgment first rendered in Sweden and then of the State of judgment a judgment debtor from a reasons we an purportedly additional vacate judgment the district court judgment and remand with instructions FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs default judgment 20 transcribed also issued in filed a A 2006 which as a against the was judgment on March 14 On on October 31 in the State of for post 2007 judgment September petition in the 19th Judicial District Court ex parte judgment making the to of state Thinkstream and the R S by the 19th J D C on interest on was 27 2007 BMA judgments 13 4241 et seq October 1 2007 that notice be issued judgments executory ordering decreeing these judgments enforceable thirty days after mailing of the notice of filing by the clerk of court as set forth in LSA 13 4243 BMA Judicial of out issued was a 2005 Oregon make these to executory in Louisiana under the provisions of LSA R S An obtained defendant Thinkstream rendered supplemental judgment Oregon BMA Advokatbyra in Stockholm Sweden subsequently April McKenzie Thinkstream Incorporated and Baker appended its to 19th J D C petition a certification by Department of Oregon Washington County that the attached C061603CV has been compared with the transcript therefrom and the whole of appears of record The certification in the was signed by presiding such original original transcript Washington County Circuit signed by circuit judge the court and that it is clerk Court as a Travis Castle s copy correct the clerk the same office and also Thomas W Kohl who certified that the 2 court clerk signed a was the proper custodian of the records the further attestation that Transcription An April 20 2006 court Case No C061603CV judgment was rendered of BMA and next appears on from on July this 7 of 20 450 Sweden Kronors performed and SEK 450 for from October 31 2005 until transcription of the the of Foreign of the Judgment designated that stating as default a in the amount of 294 800 amount Section 6 of the and in the additional paid application fee own is based on the authenticated H The foreign Chambers and the 1 Affidavit of Jonas Benedictsson filed herewith was sic with interest thereon transcription further provided judgment attached hereto the Affidavit of John by Nils Uggla to of which SEK 20 000 is for This paid pursuant 2002 until foreign judgment A certification presiding judge in the record against defendant Thinkstream Swedish Interest Act work was clerk thereafter October 31 2005 in Stockholm Sweden in favor Sweden Kronors with interest amount Kohl Judge court appended to the Transcription 2 stating NOTARIUS PUBLICUS the undersigned Nils Uggla Notary Public of the Stockholm Sweden hereby certify I that the English document is issued and Kendall authorised public City of signed by David translator that the Swedish document is a true copy of the original document that the Swedish document in Henrik Lagergren on original is issued and behalf of Stockholm City signed by court Stockholm Sweden 2005 12 14 1 The transcription was signed by John H Chambers an Oregon attorney representing however the referenced affidavits of Mr Chambers and Jonas Benedictsson do record 2 on BMA not appear in the appeal Though only a copy of this document original was affixed with a raised seal appears in the 19th J D C 3 record it appears that the Ex officio handwritten signature Nils Uggla 103 61 Stockholm 46 0 8 20 59 90 POBox 3098 S 2005 Swedish The October 31 The translation stated that 2005 and the Thinkstream amounts stated in the provided to attached was to Nils Uggla the the Swedish judgment April Oregon court prerequisites amounts judgment to also were following s rendered was forth set Transcription Mr Kendall court met default 20 2006 issued the are a of s 8 along with the translation by David Kendall dated December certification The judgment against mirroring the Foreign Judgment translation further stated that reasons in support of judgment grant the plaintiff s request by a default judgment Another certification follows in the district Oregon status to by Washington County s was again Mr Castle correct affirmed of the court document counsel was judgment attached amounts prejudgment to statement interest in the or s Oregon it amounts along with a stated that Thinkstream award 46 00 U S Dollars filing fee debtor has the option to pay the judgment including the interest owed on the date of the judgment judgment and the post judgment interest unless the parties have agreed otherwise as according to ORS 24 270 in the amount of United States dollars that will purchase that foreign money on 4 owed of 124 745 17 Sweden Kronors and further provided The a this certification and reiterated the Swedish default additionally 976 77 Sweden Kronors is Statement in prepared by BMA Support of Transcription of Foreign Judgment attested C061603CV A by whose official reciprocally status that the annexed copy from original record issued Travis Castle by Judge Kohl with his verifying transcription clerk court court This bank offered spot rate at or near the close of business on the banking day before the day of payment If the judgment debtor pays the judgment through a court the conversion date at a the payment must be in United States in ORS 24 290 2 under ORS 18 235 dollars provided foreign judgment is wholly unsatisfied Plaintiff respectfully requests recording and enforcement of the foreign as The Judgment in this Court Default The district certification and confirming the contains next third a court Oregon validity of an attached Supplemental Judgment which stated Money Award Based entered record court the Order on contemporaneously Imposing Monetary Sanctions herewith it is 3 ADJUDGED hereby plaintiff is entitled to a supplemental judgment in its favor and against defendant Thinkstream Incorporated in the amount that o 4 f 2 500 00 supplemental judgment This Circuit Court Judge answer denying the state because judgments they were Thinkstream and not are nor and 3 unlawfully s by and petition matter answer personam jurisdiction over Thinkstream further contract with BMA to incur nor legal of extrinsic fraud the existence Order 19th J D C Additionally post judgment judgment amount of Imposing Monetary petition interest at the an that the jurisdiction any a out agency percent that authorize it costs over alleged dispute alleged stating Sanctions rate of nine 5 requesting an full faith and credit in Louisiana lacking in authorize it means urged No document entitled filed with BMA 4 BMA s at to act and expenses Thinkstream also asserted that the behalf of Thinkstream by to courts lacking subject in time did Thinkstream obtained March 14 2007 petition Thinkstream filed of BMA entitled rendered in agent for Thinkstream Washington County s Thinkstream further stated in its between Thinkstream and BMA point on 19th J D C s allegations contradictory hearing of signed by Oregon Marco A Hernandez to BMA In response was judgments that BMA agreement no as on were falsely or other appears among the documents was awarded on the principal contractual relationship between it and Thinkstream Stockholm Court that it had proper jurisdiction BMA over thus the inform the as Oregon Based to was thereafter to April the subject matter court and had Thinkstream further asserted that court jurisdictional and the fraud compounded infected with were BMA knew of the and the product of deficiencies and failed to court sought an respond to rule s allegations and request for the set later continued pending Oregon judgments to matter February for 25 hearing its December 2007 were The on contradictory a January 22 2008 Counsel for Thinkstream 2008 additional continuance of the which Thinkstream stated in the the Thinkstream on before it case the 19th J D C hearing failure court Oregon extrinsic fraud which the representations s over Thinkstream maintained that the Swedish person of Thinkstream no jurisdiction thereby convincing the hearing citing discovery requests the necessary in order to contradictory hearing try the was BMA s responses to matters at issue continued again to 14 2008 On March 8 2008 BMA filed Submit Exhibits under Seal wherein it Ex Parte Motion and Order to was the issue of its retention of BMA contests retention relevant an as to of caution well as the work performed establish the retention s asserted that documents as Thinkstream pertaining to the in connection with the retention existence and that out of an are abundance BMA requests that the documents be filed under seal in order to protect any privileged confidential and or proprietary information contained within and or referenced to in the documents 6 The motion was granted by the district court correspondence were April On and including filed into the record under seal 2008 Thinkstream filed 4 that the maintaining documents numerous 5 motion a to compel discovery underlying Swedish judgment in this and unenforceable and case was Thinkstream further contended evidence BMA possessed establish Thinkstream had the necessary minimum contacts right to discover what Thinkstream conceded that BMA to be responsive formal response to the original pleading any way to its second set of The 19th J D C discovery full and Copies complete fashion of two the other in 2008 and that BMA failed requested all of the one to the lawsuit evidence 5 Thinkstream evidence to objection to respond was in a served the motion and to the sought subject matter an of communications between BMA and and which included Thinkstream in in December 2007 and propounded to respond to an BMA to compel extensive array of documents that in any way related over with Sweden discovery with which it appended were relating to documents which appear discovery tendering instead discovery requests February some that tended request for production but asserted that no was to produced provided was invalid that BMA had the burden to prove that the asserting foreign tribunal had personal jurisdiction that it had the items of vanous the Swedish supporting the court s judgments personal jurisdiction at issue evidence of accompanied by an affidavit purporting to certify that the copies of the originals however the signature of the affiant Gustafsson legal counsel employed with SMA does not appear on the affidavit filed with Leif the 19th J D C We note that BMA appended a sworn copy of the Gustafsson affidavit to its appellate brief however the attachment was excised by this court s clerk as violative of this court s August 24 1995 Order decreeing that appellate briefs filed in this Court shall have a copy of the judgment order or ruling complained of and a copy of attached thereto only either the trial court s written reasons for judgment transcribed oral reasons for judgment or minute entry of the reasons if given unless for good cause shown on written motion permission See http www la fcca org attachmcnts htm Further we note that an is granted by the Court appellate court must render its judgment upon the record on appeal we cannot review evidence The items documents under seal were that is not in the record 2008 1085 5 29 09 1246 p 5 were true and correct La So 2d nor can we receive App 1 Cir 3 27 09 Pinegar v Harris new evidence See In So 2d 2006 2489 p 2 La 1249 7 re Succession of Badeaux writ denied App 2009 0822 I Cir 5 4 07 La 961 So 2d of process servIce filed in Sweden and pleadings also made 17 other notices or BMA to discovery an fees dated by attorneys in Luxemburg fees dated s s were May and 2 17 2002 includes services May to Prior to court to the judgment BMA further asserted that Thinkstream is rendered On the impermissibly non court discoverable information not discovery into the merits of the claims on Thinkstream motion s judgment in favor of BMA reasons was ruled unduly vague on compel discovery April the issuing 14 2008 I find that there is in Sweden for the transaction that jurisdiction on to 6 for judgment showing made by the plaintiff jurisdiction the relevant hearing following oral discovery contending the s and conduct a Thinkstream to burdensome sought enforcement of the entitled objection overbroad was that the requests the requests for admissions by attorneys in the Netherlands BMA filed district and copIes of all Admit that the bill for attorney 1 Admit that the bill for attorney not Two Oregon 2002 includes services rendered rendered Thinkstream to therefore Im going to deny the answer and make the judgment executory Thereafter on May 27 2008 the trial IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment of Stockholm court signed a judgment stating ADJUDGED AND DECREED dated October 31 2005 of the District Court Division Tinsgditt s the 2 as transcribed of the Circuit Court of April Washington on by Judgment County Oregon as well as the Supplemental Judgment and County Washington Money A ward of the Circuit Court of dated March 14 2007 be and are hereby made Oregon 20 2006 executory Thinkstream has suspensively appealed asserting the following assignments of failing 6 to make the A minute entry Thinkstream s requisite inquiry in the record dated motion to on the compel discovery as same was set 8 error to day for the district court 1 the trial whether the as this a June April court erred in of personal question 14 2008 2 2008 judgment ruling hearing indicates that fully and fairly considered by the had been jurisdiction Oregon that rendered apparently original judgments concluded that there exercise of personal 3 the the trial jurisdiction showing regarding the in jurisdictions regarding refusing erred in court particular minimum appellant to whether the contacts Sweden and court erred when it contacts for the Thinkstream in Sweden require of the contents the trial sufficient minimum were over 2 courts in the plaintiff pleadings make any to in pleadings filed the contained any and foreign allegations personal jurisdiction or DISCUSSION BMA filed this suit Judgments 1985 La Act LSA R S Acts Enforcement of No executory in this or via as Act which Foreign enacted was with the federal Uniform 1964 revision Section 4242 of foreign judgment judgment court A state to be made foreign judgment is defined decree or which is entitled order of to a court of the full faith and credit added Sections 4241 and 4242 of the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act provide in full 4241 Definition In this Part a foreign judgment court ofthe United States credit in this 4242 means any judgment decree or order of or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and state Filing and status of foreign judgments A copy of any foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with of congress or the statutes ofthis state may be annexed to and filed with parte petition complying with Code of Civil Procedure Article 891 and an act an ex praying The foreign be made executory in a court of this state judgment shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of a court of this state It shall have the same effect and be subject to the same procedures and that the judgment defenses for reopening vacating and may be enforced in the same by parte petition and thereafter treated in the of this any of any other conformity authenticated an ex judgment Emphasis in this state 7 properly 13 4241 United States in 1 S 13 4248 through 13 4241 464 state same manner as a LSA R S the basis of the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 464 allows any by on or staying manner 9 as a judgment of a court of this state This in Ault court writ denied 569 is entitled 967 La 1990 2d So 374 Bradley 564 So 2d v 377 1 Cir App La in discussing what type of judgment full faith and credit stated to Considering the definition of 13 4241 in LSA R S as a judgment given foreign judgment that is entitled to full faith inquiry in any proceeding under the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act is whether the judgment sought to be recognized is one that is entitled to full and credit in this the threshold state faith and credit deny full faith and credit to a judgment rendered by a court of another state only when it is shown that the court which rendered the judgment lacked jurisdiction over A state may the parties that the subject matter of or a court a judgment person in the sister case a and it is incumbent upon the to show by clear and positive attacking the judgment court was without jurisdiction added citations omitted Further the supreme 9 10 La general presumption jurisdiction to render the had state before it proof that the rendering Emphasis There is 17 1 court stated in Schultz 776 So 2d 1158 01 1164 The Full Faith and Credit Clause Article IV of the Constitution of the United States judgment of a state court 2000 0926 pp Doyle v should have the Section 1 mandates that credit same a validity and effect in every other court of the United States that it has in The Supreme Court of the the state where it is pronounced continuously interpreted the Full Faith and United States has Credit Clause to mean that full faith and credit is only when the jurisdiction of the either impeached Therefore a sister state judgment as to the subject state court iud1ment only if the court court can in another a be accorded state is not the person be made a judgment in a matter purporting has power to render such to or render the to original judgment Emphasis added citations omitted Article IV Section 1 of the U S Constitution and Credit shall be given in each judicial Proceedings of everv Laws prescribe shall be proved State to the other State the Manner in which such Acts and the Effect thereof 10 public And the Full Faith provides Acts Congress Records may Records and Emphasis added and by general Proceedings The Supreme Court has traditionally interpreted the Full Faith and Credit Clause res judicata to is also to the Petroleum Co 149 that which has been mean same extent Hunt 320 U S 430 v in every other 437 38 In furtherance thereof 1943 adjudicated in one See state 64 S Ct 208 28 U S C A and is state Magnolia 213 88 L Ed in provides 1738 pertinent part The records and Territory such State proved or of any court of any judicial proceedings Possession or or copies thereof shall be admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed if a seal exists together with a certificate of a judge proper form Such Acts thereof so of the records and authenticated that the said attestation is in court judicial proceedings shall have the same copies or full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of Territory or Possession from which they such State While the Full Faith and Credit Clause enforcement of judgments 402 3d F Society Jaffe 982 of lOth Cir 993 Lloyd Ct 1989 2005 546 U S s 826 Surety and See also Becker Sup countries inforeign Accredited v 2002 321 rendered v App does Society of Lloyd cert denied sub 143 Misc 2d 500 S A v taken recognition not 3d F Bennett 584 s foreign judgment v 2005 4th Cir 541 N Y S 2d 699 Gonzalez H 129 Ariz 1981 Both the Becker and Multibanco decisions hold that their state to Reinhart s v nom and apply 163 L Ed 2d 73 294 Casualty Co Multibanco Comermex 630 P 2d 1053 it 126 S Ct 366 Becker the states among sister judgments to applies are law does countries full faith and credit In not a one reasoned 11 accord the judgments respective of foreign page decision the Multibanco court judgment of a Mexican court a foreign judgment within the meaning of A R S Sec 12 1701 of the Uniform We hold that it is not Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act Is a and affirm Appellant filed in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County eight Mexican judgments which it sought to enforce under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act A R S Sec 12 1701 et seq Pursuant to appellees motion the trial court quashed the judgments 12 1701 states that A R S Sec foreign judgment means any to full faith and credit which is entitled judgment in this state Appellant contends that a judgment from Mexico is a do foreign judgment and The not agree is entitled to full faith and credit full faith and credit that is referred is the full faith and credit that is Constitution of the United States Art IV Sec 12 1701 Full Faith and Credit shall be We to required by 1 which given in each State to in the states judicial This means that full faith of every other State and credit must be given to the judicial proceedings of a sister Proceedings state but not to judgments Multibanco Comermex S A from v foreign countries Gonzalez H 8 129 Ariz at 321 630 P 2d at 1053 8 prefatory notes of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform approval of the original 1948 Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act The mobility today of both persons and property is such that existing procedure for the enforcement ofjudgments in those cases where the judgment This conclusion is given further credence State Laws by the on its debtor has removed himself and his property from the state in which the iudement was rendered is inadequate By this act procedure is made available under which the judgment obtain relief and at the same time adequate protection is given the creditor can effectively interposed to an action on such Sarah L Johnson Validity Construction and Application of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 31 A LRAth 706 1984 emphasis added Upon of the 1964 revision of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act the adoption Overcrowded Court congestion is a problem common to all states commissioners observed with attendant delays inevitably tend to lower dockets overworked judges and court officials One of the things that contributes to calendar standards for the administration of justice congestion is the Federal necessity of giving full faith and credit to the iudements of courts of other states While there is no constitutional requirement that a debtor who has had a full due process trial in one state need be given a second full scale trial on the judgment in another state this is the only course generally available to creditors The usual practice requires that an action be commenced on the foreign judgment The full procedural requirements apply to the second That the federal Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act action Id emphasis added did not intend to apply to the judgments of foreign countries is further emphasized upon comparison with the provisions of the prior 1962 Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act made specifically applicable to foreign states defined as any governmental unit other than the United States or any state district commonwealth territory insular possession thereof or the Panama Canal Zone the Trust Territory ofthe Pacific Islands or the Ryukyu Islands Thus the 962 Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act dealt with the judgments of foreign countries while the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act dealt with judgments foreign to an individual state i e out of state judgments entitled to full judgment judgment debtor to present any defense that can faith and credit under the U S Constitution 12 now be The recognition of the judgments of foreign countries is governed by principles of within its territory both s of persons who or country forum provides under jurisdiction administration of fraud in duty and convenience and afresh has proper The judgment the Hilton 1895 But such credit Compania v Ltd 36 F Guyot to of its If the a to court secure show either not not prejudice 113 come 210 11 foreign of competent an impartial prejudice 16 S Ct the or not court rights of S D N Y 1999 139 40 L Ed 95 clothed with full faith and MexicaDa Rediodifusora Franteriza v Spann 41 D C Tx 1941 foregoing own S C Chimexim public policy Supp 2d 206 159 U S judgment does a Supp 907 909 does not on the authorize ex countries in a Louisiana 9 rights the regard judgment should be enforced and violate domestic or Based F the nothing and enforcement does Enterprises citing in part due practice of extending comity whenever the foreign jurisdiction Velco v full and fair trial before and there is justice United States citizens S A a having under the protection of its laws system of jurisprudence likely a procuring are to country allows one of the judicial acts of another country international to citizens tried Comity is the recognition that comity we conclude that LSA R S 13 4241 et seq parte enforcement of the judgments of foreign state court 9 Spain 506 So 2d 218 219 La App 5 Cir 1987 stating that a creditor with a foreign judgment can proceed against a debtor in Louisiana by ordinary action with citation and service LSA C C P art 2541 or by an expedited proceeding with notice of Footnotes omitted At issue filing of the petition by certified mail LSA R S 13 4241 et seq in that case was the validity of a Louisiana district court judgment making executory a judgment rendered in France Holding that the formalities required of either a proceeding pursuant to LSA C cP art 2541 or LSA R S 13 4241 et seq were not complied with the Fifth Circuit declared As the comments on the procedures available to the district court judgment null and void enforce the French judgment were dicta and the two page opinion did not squarely address the issue before this court we do not find this decision to be persuasive authority in the instant case But see Rouffanche v D 13 A judgment creditor nevertheless rendered in a LSA C C P foreign country by filing art 2541 which A A party Louisiana court of a has an remedy a enforce to ordinary action a judgment in accordance with provides seeking recognition or execution by a judgment or decree of a court of the United of any other state or of anv foreiJn countrv mav either seek enforcement pursuant to R S 13 4241 et sell or brinJ an ordinarv proceedinJ against the States or territory thereof a or judgment judgment debtor in the proper Louisiana court to have the or decree recognized and made the judgment of the Louisiana court In the latter B judgment or decree authenticated copy of the be annexed to the petition case must a duly Emphasis added We that recognize that the provisions seeking to a reading of Article of LSA R S 13 4241 et seq make the judgment of However such a 2541 may a are available to foreign country executory reading is in direct conflict with the LSA R S 13 4241 et seq the give express is matter must presumed to be 10 interpreted in reference to have acted with deliberation and light of the preceding petitioner a in Louisiana provisions of 10 The laws of statutory construction reqUIre that laws subject impression statutes involving the each other to same The have enacted subject the on matter same legislature a statute Under in our though we hold herein that LSA R S 13 4241 et seq cannot be applied to make the judgment of a foreign country executory the proponent of such a judgment nevertheless may utilize the ordinary proceeding authorized by LSA C C P art 2541 to make such a judgment We note the primary distinction between the procedure authorized by LSA R S executory 13 4241 et seq and the procedure authorized by LSA C C P art 2541 is that an ordinary Even proceeding in accordance with LSA CC P art 85 I et seq must be filed in the latter while an ex is in the former in accordance with LSA R S 13 4242 The ordinary parte judgment proceeding proceeding v granted afforded under LSA C C P and is therefore Southern Portraits Inc subject 424 art 2541 to the same rules 2d So 1100 1101 is the same as that in any other ordinary and trial Stephens Photo Inc Cir 1982 1 and must be finalized for pleading La App 2d So 655 656 La App I Cir 1975 any Lejeune v Lejeune 310 We further note that in a that circumvents this procedure is fatally defective Id proceeding LSA C C P art 2541 proceeding citation and service pursuant to LSA C C P 1202 et seq is required while under LSA R S 13 4243 B only a mailed notice of filing of the suit is required And in contrast to the ex parte grant of a judgment under LSA R S 13 4242 unless the judgment debtor seeks a contradictory hearing as provided in LSA R S 13 4244 a trial is required in a LSA C C P art 2541 proceeding But see also Delta National Bank of Yazoo City v Holder 398 So 2d 1072 La 1981 holding that judgment in a LSA C C P art 2541 proceeding may be obtained via motion for summary judgment in accordance with LSA C C P art 966 in appropriate circumstances by a judgment of the court 14 long standing rules of statutory construction where it is possible have a in the duty interpretation of harmonizes and reconciles it with other A statute must be subject matter logical and consistent with the Legislature had in enacting it 19 1 2004 0227 p 36 La 05 It is of interest that the R S through 13 4241 C C P Prior art 2541 A A to court States a of interpreted and applied presumed fair Louisiana construction that with the in a same that is manner purpose and intention the Association Municipal State v 893 So 2d 809 837 legislative same act that LSA promulgated Acts No 464 1985 La also amended LSA its amendment Article 2541 read a judgment or decree territory thereof foreign country a provisions dealing party seeking recognition Louisiana or 13 4248 adopt statute to a courts must bring or execution or of a state ordinary proceeding an a of the United court of any other by of any against the or judgment debtor in the proper Louisiana court to have the or decree recognized and made the judgment of the Louisiana court judgment duly authenticated copy of the judgment be annexed to the petition B must A or decree Emphasis added Act No 464 2 eliminated may either seek enforcement in Paragraph B added changed A must to R pursuant to read provisions of LSA RS parte procedure authorized therein faith and credit in this the LSA R S 13 4241 et seq state S 13 4241 either to must procedure only RS 13 4241 et seq 15 as Emphasis which restrict the interpreted as and or language of Article or be and substituted et seq foreign judgments When Article 2541 is read in provisions of LSA A case a 13 4241 et seq Article 2541 13 4241 et seq Paragraph In the latter In order to reconcile the current 2541 with the in entitled to to allow ex full use of authorized in LSA R S conjunction with the directed by LSA C C express arts 12 and 13 11 the See Medine Since more 2003 3436 p 11 Roniger v we of LSA R S specific provisions La 7 2 04 erred in court seq with to respect exception did in the lack of a Harrah state right to opportunity s Club II LSA R S to of 2 500 00 13 4241 personal jurisdiction as et seq alleged recognized when the him under the Mijalis v a out of state jurisdictional 557 So 2d 1142 stay of the enforcement of an LSA R S by to seek present evidence Cutrer 97 0599 p 5 La Morgan Buildings These Civil Code articles Art 12 1145 La at Ambiguous Laws on on a of state judgment contradictory hearing a judgment debtor as 1 Cir 4 8 98 Spas Inc Spas 711 So 2d 777 Cutrer v 98 1504 p an why to stayed Morgan Buildings App 9 780 La words are ambiguous the context in which they Art 13 Laws gives out provide When the words of a law by examining and 13 4244 B enforcement of the judgment should be See also amount writ denied 559 So 2d 1387 La 1990 2 Cir v principal over personal jurisdiction et Money Award have authorized Inc and by clear and positive proof that the not The IS establish be 12 the full faith and credit mandate is to laws of the that App can cannot conclude the debtor shows judgment court court Oregon we 714 under LSA R S 13 4241 proceed enforcement pursuant to unless Thinkstream An the et seq Supplemental Judgment the directly by would be entitled to the Swedish judgment Nevertheless rendered allowing BMA prevail 879 So 2d 706 rule herein that the judgments of foreign countries made executory in Louisiana via LSA R S 13 4241 district 13 4241 et seq the the same same subject subject occur their meaning must be and the text ofthe law as a sought whole matter matter must be interpreted in reference to each other 12 Oregon judgment in the a judgment ofthe Oregon judgment an Oregon judgment We have found Swedish no also record on court and 16 appeal which purports to make the thus entitled to full faith and credit as 1 Cir App 13 4244 would be upon to stayed the This basis for court the issue of the to to allow Thinkstream to note we to this show a In order to discovery in order case we find the evidentiary hearing to on compel BMA to to its brief filed with this documents filed by BMA to under seal thereon for ease unnumbered in globo submission In court referred of this In a light of our rulings herein supplemental court February s we index Thinkstream seeks 25 court of this and to previously 2009 action another motion to panel for this find it unnecessary to Motion a copies of the in the district of reference Thinkstream court in which it seeks Supplemental Appendix affix page numbers the an append disposition debtor that Thinkstream has filed with this Include Exhibits in be allowed panel required in Oregon judgment and in 2 500 00 enforceability of the to in the instant Therefore is judgment access state discovery requests propounded the Finally numerous failing state of this foreign judgment as grant timely relief to Thinkstream in its attempt respond to for Leave of out judgment debtor should have erred in court court a judgment a of LSA R S contradictory motion of judgment the burden upon staying the enforcement of the a on for satisfaction of the judgment obtain necessary evidence failing debtor proves a B Paragraph shall stay enforcement of the provision places this burden district to judgment 995 upon which the execution of requiring security state meet 739 So 2d 990 If the provides ground any 7 29 99 to file and therefore entertain deny the motion CONCLUSION For the favor of Baker remanded to reasons assigned herein the judgment McKenzie the district of the district court in Advokatbyra is hereby vacated court and the matter is for further proceedings in accordance with the 17 We further instruct the district court to accord Thinkstream foregoing Incorporated March 14 appeal evidentiary hearing 2007 Incorporated this an to the Oregon judgment and in advance of the are on be borne JUDGMENT to enforceability McKenzie VACATED INSTRUCTIONS 18 to Thinkstream this issue All costs of grant discovery evidentiary hearing by Baker in this state of the on Advokatbyra REMANDED WITH
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
