USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Jason W. Myatt, Ankita Ritwik and Charline Yim, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
private databases including Westlaw, LexisNexis and Bloomberg. Once a judgment has been paid, the creditor is expected to file an acknowledgement of the satisfac - tion of the judgment with the clerk of the issuing court and any other court in which the judgment has been registered. If the creditor refuses to file the acknowl - edgement, the debtor may file a motion with the court requesting an order that enters satisfaction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(5)). A judgment cannot usually be removed from the pub - lic docket. The sealing of court records is generally only permitted in exceptional circumstances related to privacy or safety concerns (Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2). 3. Foreign Judgments 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The United States has not ratified any convention or treaty which governs the enforcement of foreign judgments, nor is there any federal statute governing them nationwide. Thus, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments within the United States is deter - mined on a state-by-state basis, either through state statutes or common law. (See Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law § 481 (1987).) In the absence of a central legal authority, several states have chosen to adopt a uniform approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Rec - ognition Act (the “1962 Model Act”) sought to codify the procedures established by the Supreme Court in Hilton v Guyot in 1895 for the recognition of foreign judgments ( Hilton v Guyot , 159 U.S. 113 (1895)). Thir - ty-one states, the District of Columbia, and the US Virgin Islands originally adopted the 1962 Model Act, and nine continue to apply the 1962 Model Act today. The 1962 Model Act was updated (and renamed) in 2005, adding several key changes such as finality, conclusivity and enforceability requirements for rec - ognition (Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (2005) (the “Model Act” or “UFCM -
JRA”)). As of this writing, 29 states and the District of Columbia have adopted this updated version in their legislative codes, although states have typically refrained from adopting the Model Act in whole and have modified it in some way, such as requiring that an action to recognise a foreign judgment be com - menced within 20 years of the effective date of the judgment, rather than 15 years as provided for in the Model Act. (See, eg, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5303 (d) (2025).) The remaining states resolve foreign judgment claims through state common law. 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Certain foreign judgments may not be recognised by US courts, as discussed in 3.3 Categories of For- eign Judgments Not Enforced . Additionally, state law approaches to the recognition of foreign judgments will be different, sometimes significantly, including the way in which the state law addresses reciprocity with the foreign jurisdiction as a prerequisite to recognition of the judgment and the way it analyses grounds for non-recognition of foreign judgments. 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced US courts will generally only recognise foreign civil judgments where the remedy is exclusively monetary. In other words, US courts will not enforce foreign judgments granting injunctive relief. In addition, US courts will also generally not enforce judgments that are: • punitive; • not final; or • arise from a foreign country’s tax or penal laws. Similarly, US courts generally will not enforce judg - ments entered without affording the judgment debtor due process or entered by a court without jurisdiction over the judgment debtor. This may preclude enforce - ment of some, but not all, default judgments. Some states may also decline to enforce judgments where the underlying cause of action or the resulting judg - ment violates the state’s public policy.
507 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook