Sakhrani v. Alpha Funding

Sakhrani v. Alpha Funding

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Lakhi Sakhrani, M.D.,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Alpha Funding Group Trust,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030101-CA
 

F I L E D
(July 1, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 223

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Anthony B. Quinn

Attorneys: Wesley F. Sine, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Arnold Richer, Darci D. Tolbert, and Mark E. Medcalf, South Jordan, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Thorne.

BILLINGS, Presiding Judge:

    Alpha Funding Group Trust (Alpha) appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to set aside a foreign judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.

    Alpha chose not to defend a California lawsuit brought against it by Dr. Lakhi Sakhrani, and instead collaterally attacked the resulting default judgment when Sakhrani brought an enforcement action in Utah. Alpha claims that the judgment is not enforceable because the California court lacked jurisdiction. We disagree.

    We review the trial court's determination of whether the California court had personal jurisdiction for correctness. See Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110,¶8, 2 P.3d 451. "A judgment rendered in a foreign state is presumed to have been entered with jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter. The burden is upon [the party] seeking avoidance of the judgment[] to overcome that presumption of jurisdiction." Data Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. EDP Corp., 709 P.2d 377, 380 (Utah 1985) (citations omitted).

    California's long-arm statute permits jurisdiction limited only by considerations of due process. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 (2004). Thus, California courts have specific jurisdiction(1) over nonresident defendants "if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of a defendant's contacts with the forum." Integral Dev. Corp. v. Helmut Weissenbach, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 24, 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (quotations and citations omitted). Once these two criteria are met, California courts may exercise specific jurisdiction as long as after "balancing the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state . . . the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable under all of the circumstances." Id. (citations omitted).

    The underlying subject matter of this case is Alpha's failure to repay a loan provided to it by Sakhrani. The loan
was solicited in California by Tal Lally, a California resident, on behalf of Alpha, and the loan was to be repaid in California. Thus, the first two criteria for specific jurisdiction are
met because Alpha chose to do business with a resident of California--whether directly with both Sakhrani and Lally or directly with Lally and only indirectly with Sakhrani--and the resulting controversy arose out of Alpha's contact with California.

    The exercise of jurisdiction also is fair and reasonable under these circumstances. California has an interest in providing a forum for its residents when they are solicited in California to provide loans to nonresident companies. Also, the balancing of convenience of the parties favors jurisdiction: it would be unfair to require a California resident to travel to Utah to enforce a loan agreement when the original loan was solicited in California. Thus, the California court had specific jurisdiction over Alpha.

    Because the California court had jurisdiction, the default judgment is "entitled to full faith and credit" in Utah. Data Mgmt., 709 P.2d at 379 (citations omitted). Therefore, the trial
court did not err by enforcing the California judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. Alpha seems to confuse general and specific jurisdiction both in its argument before the trial court and in its briefs in this court. While "continuous and systematic" contacts are necessary for general jurisdiction, they are not required for specific jurisdiction. Integral Dev. Corp. v. Helmut Weissenbach, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 24, 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (quotations and citation omitted).