MOERSCH v. ZAHEDI (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Zahedi appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Carlo Moersch. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision whether to recognize a foreign-country money judgment under California’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (the “Uniform Act”). See Ohno v. Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 1001–02 & n.20 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

1. Zahedi has not carried his burden of establishing that his due process rights were violated by the Luxembourg Court of Appeal. See Hyundai Sec. Co. v. Lee, 232 Cal.App.4th 1379, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 264, 268 (2015). Though Zahedi alleges that he lacked notice of the Luxembourg proceeding and was not present or represented by counsel before the Luxembourg Court of Appeal, the record refutes these allegations. An authenticated copy of the Luxembourg Court of Appeal’s judgment indicates that Zahedi was represented. Zahedi cites his own declaration to establish the contrary, but the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the declaration fails to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4) and thus is inadmissible.¹ See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1224 (9th Cir. 2007).

2. The 300,000 euros that Zahedi contests as a “fine or penalty” not subject to recognition under the Uniform Act, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1715(b)(2), was a compensatory award between civil litigants. It was not a punitive judgment for a violation of a public offense. The award was therefore not a “fine or penalty” for purposes of the Uniform Act and was subject to recognition. See Java Oil Ltd. v. Sullivan, 168 Cal.App.4th 1178, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 177, 183–84 (2008).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We deny Zahedi’s motion to supplement the record with a 2010 letter that he allegedly sent his Luxembourg counsel informing her that he had moved to California. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) “cannot be used to add to or enlarge the record on appeal to include material which was not before the district court.” United States v. Walker, 601 F.2d 1051, 1054 (9th Cir. 1979).