Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments Laws And Regulations USA 2025

1.1 Please set out the various regimes applicable to recognising and enforcing judgments in your jurisdiction and the names of the countries to which such special regimes apply.

2.1 Absent any applicable special regime, what is the legal framework under which a foreign judgment would be recognised and enforced in your jurisdiction?

The United States is not a party to any treaty on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, nor is there a federal, nationwide law governing foreign judgments. Hence, enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by the local laws of the individual states. These state laws share certain principles. For example, the principle of comity generally requires giving foreign judgments deference. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), "where there has been opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad before a court of competent jurisdiction, conducting the trial upon regular proceedings, after due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice", the merits of the case "should not ... be tried afresh" in an enforcement action. Id. at 202–3. The courts treat foreign arbitration awards more favourably than foreign judgments because the U.S. is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention"), the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration ("Panama Convention"), and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States ("ICSID Convention").

Most states, including New York, Florida, and Texas, have enacted a version of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act of 1962 (the "1962 Uniform Act"), which provides for an expedited procedure to enforce foreign money judgments. Some states, including California and the District of Columbia, have enacted a version of the revised 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (the "2005 Uniform Act") (together with the 1962 Uniform Act, the "Uniform Acts"). Individual state statutes modelled on one of the Uniform Acts and interpretative case law can differ.

2.2 What constitutes a 'judgment' capable of recognition and enforcement in your jurisdiction?

The Uniform Acts apply to specified foreign judgments that grant or deny recovery of a sum of money. The Acts do not apply to non-money judgments, e.g., judgments for declaratory or injunctive relief, judgments for taxes, fines or other penalties, or judgments "for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other judgment[s] rendered in connection with domestic relations". See 1962 Uniform Act § 1(2); 2005 Uniform Act § 3(a)–(b); see also N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5301(b); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1715(a)–(b). However, a judgment not covered by a Uniform Act might still be enforceable. The Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 481(1) (Am. Law Inst. 1987) has a broader scope than the Uniform Acts and is persuasive authority in many states. It provides that foreign judgments "establishing or confirming the status of a person, or determining interests in property" are also entitled to recognition.

Consistent with generally recognised rules of comity, both Uniform Acts provide that a foreign judgment must be: (i) final; (ii) conclusive; and (iii) enforceable in its country of origin. See 1962 Uniform Act § 2; 2005 Uniform Act § 3(a)(2); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5302; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1715(a)(2); Fla. Stat. § 55.603 (2023); Pilkington Bros. P.L.C. v. AFG Indus. Inc., 581 F. Supp. 1039, 1045 (D. Del. 1984). Under the 1962 Uniform Act, a foreign judgment is "final" even if an appeal is pending or possible. See 1962 Uniform Act § 2. However, as a practical matter, a U.S. court will often stay proceedings if an appeal is pending. See, e.g., N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 5302, 5306; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1720; Fla. Stat. §§ 55.603, 55.607 (2015). A foreign money judgment is "conclusive" between the parties to the extent it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money. See, e.g., N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5303; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1715(a); Fla. Stat. §§ 55.602(2), 55.603 (2023). To determine if a foreign judgment is enforceable in its home jurisdiction, a U.S. court will examine the laws of that jurisdiction. See Sea Trade Maritime Corp. v. Coutsodontis, 21 N.Y.S. 3d 887, 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016); Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Sumerel, No. 2:06-cv-329-FtM- 29DNF, 2007 WL 2114381, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2007).

The required form of a foreign judgment eligible for recognition varies from state to state and local rules must be consulted. New York, for example, requires an authenticated copy of the foreign judgment and an English translation of the judgment accompanied by an affidavit by the translator. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 2101(b), 5402(a).

2.3 What requirements (in form and substance) must a foreign judgment satisfy in order to be recognised and enforceable in your jurisdiction?

Under the Uniform Acts, a judgment must either award or deny the recovery of money, be final and conclusive, and be enforceable in its home country. See 1962 Uniform Act § 3; 2005 Uniform Act § 3(a)(2).

Section 6 of the 2005 Uniform Act requires the judgment creditor to initiate legal proceedings against the debtor. In 2021, New York's Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act was amended to provide that a request for recognition of a foreign judgment should be raised by filing either a complaint or a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5303(b). If recognition is sought within an existing proceeding, "the issue of recognition may be raised by counterclaim, cross-claim or affirmative defense". N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5303(c).

A petitioner who files a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3213 must attach a summons, notice of motion, affirmation, affidavits, exhibits, and a memorandum of law. The petitioner must authenticate the foreign judgment in compliance with federal law, such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 44 or Fed. R. Evid. 902(3), or the law of New York. The authenticated judgment should be filed within 90 days from the authentication date. The petitioner must submit a Request for Judicial Intervention promptly.

Under certain circumstances, the petitioner must furnish additional documentation to the court. A certified English translation is required if the judgment was issued in a foreign language. Unless apparent from the judgment itself, the petitioner must present an affidavit, in English, from a legal expert in the judgment's home jurisdiction that the judgment is final, conclusive, and enforceable in the home jurisdiction. The authorities cited by the expert, translated if necessary, must be provided. See Sea Trade Mar. Corp. v. Coutsodontis, 978 N.Y.S.2d 115, 117–18 (App. Div. 2013); John R. Higgitt, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3213, at 704–05 (Supp. 2020).

2.4 What (if any) connection to the jurisdiction is required for your courts to accept jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment?

A U.S. court must generally have: (1) personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor or jurisdiction over the judgment debtor's assets; and (2) subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The precise formulation of the standard for personal jurisdiction varies from state to state. The touchstone is whether the debtor has "minimum contacts" with the forum state "such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice". See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). In New York, a judgment creditor does not need to establish personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor if the judgment debtor's assets are located in the state. Similarly, other states require personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor or the debtor's property in order to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment in their state. See, e.g., Arbor Farms, LLC v. GeoStar Corp., 305 Mich. App. 374, 382-83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014); Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 481 cmt. h (1987). A judgment debtor can waive the defence of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction is mainly a federal court issue because the federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction that is specified in federal law. State trial courts have general jurisdiction. The federal courts are only available for foreign judgment enforcement if there is diversity jurisdiction (i.e., the claim exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states) or federal question jurisdiction (i.e., the claim arises under U.S. federal law). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1332. Even if a federal court has jurisdiction, local state law applies to substantive issues.

Parties seeking to enforce foreign arbitral awards in the U.S. will face variations in procedural and jurisdictional regulations, dictated by both treaty obligations and statutory provisions (in particular, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")).

2.5 Is there a difference between recognition and enforcement of judgments? If so, what are the legal effects of recognition and enforcement respectively?

"Recognition"...