The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments between the United States and China: A Study of Sanlian v. Robinson

• Author: He Qisheng
• Pages: 24-44

HE (DO NOT DELETE) 2014-1-29 1:47 PM

24 TSINGHUA CHINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6:23

THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN

JUDGMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA:

A STUDY OF SANLIAN V. ROBINSON

HE Qisheng

Abstract

Sanlian v. Robinson (Sanlian) is the f irst Chinese judgment recognized and enforced by U.S.

courts. Sanlian is a breakthrough in the recognition and enforcement of judgments between

the two countries. However, there are still many issues that need to be overcome in order to

establish a future reciprocity arrangement with regards to recognition and enforcement of

judgments between China and the United States as a whole, or even just between Chinese and

Californian courts. To improve transnational justice, the courts of both countries should adopt

a presumed reciprocity approach. In the long run, a bilateral treaty is the ideal solution to

improve mutual enforcement of judgments between the United States and China.

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 22, 1994, a Model R44 helicopter crashed in the

Yangtze River. Three people died and significant damages were

incurred. Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus. Co. v. Robinson Helicopter

Co. (hereinafter Sanlian)1 resulted from that accident. The helicopter

was manufactured by California-based Robinson Helicopter Co.

(“Robinson”), which was owned by Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus.

Co. (“Sanlian”) and operated by Hubei Pinghu Cruise Co., Ltd.

(“Pinghu”). In March 1995, Sanlian and Pinghu sued Robinson in the

Superior Court of Los Angeles County for damages based on

negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty. The action

was dismissed in November 1995 on the grounds of forum non

conveniens (FNC). The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit in the Chinese

High People’s Court of Hubei Province (“Hubei high court”). In

2004, that Court issued a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

In 2006, Sanlian and Pinghu filed their complaint against Robinson

in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California (“California district court”) requesting enforcement of the

Chinese judgment.

On March 29, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit (“ninth circuit court”) affirmed the decision of the

California district court, which had recognized the Hubei high

court’s judgment. Chinese and U.S. scholars and lawyers have paid

1 Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus. Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co., No. 2:06-cv-01798-FMC-SSx,

2009 WL 2190187, (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2009), aff’d, 425 F. App’x 580 (9th Cir. 2011) [hereinafter

Sanlian].

HE (DO NOT DELETE) 2014-1-29 1:47 PM

2013] RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT 25

much attention to the ninth circuit court’s judgment.2 Scholars have

evaluated Sanlian as “breaking the ice,”3 “the first Chinese judgment

recognized and enforced by the United States courts”4 and “the first

landmark decision.”5

However, the Sanlian litigation process was an expensive,

17-year ordeal for both parties.6 The FNC proceedings alone took

the parties almost three years to complete.7 The trial proceedings in

the Hubei high court took four more years, from 2001 to 2005,8 and

the plaintiffs’ request for enforcement of the Chinese judgment

involved proceedings that lasted another five years.9

Owing to the lengthy delays and high costs, Sanlian is not an

effective precedent to follow for the reciprocal enforcement of

foreign judgments. It is unclear if Sanlian should really be

considered a milestone or breakthrough in the recognition and

enforcement of judgments between China and the United States.10

The major objective of this paper is to identify to what degree

Sanlian actually represents a breakthrough between the two

countries. I also identify and explore paths to improving transnational

cooperation in enforcement of judgments.

This paper is divided into five parts. Part I introduces general

background information to Sanlian. Part II discusses the Sanlian

judgment and UFMJRA standards. Part III analyzes the possibility of

2 See Christopher A. Whytock & Cassandra Burke Robertson, Forum Non Conveniens and the

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 1444 (2011); Mark Moedritzer et al.,

Judgments ‘Made in China’ But Enforceable in the United States?: Obtaining Recognition and

Enforcement in the United States of Monetary Judgments Entered in C hina Against U.S. Companies

Doing Business Abroad, 44 INT’L LAW. 817 (2010); E. Paul Dougherty, First Enforcement of a Chinese

Judgment by a U.S. Court under Review, PRODUCT LIABILITY NEWSLETTER (January 2011); Christina

Weston, The Enforcement Loophole: Judgment Recognition Defenses as a Loophole to Corporate

Accountability for Conduct Abroad, 25 EMORY INT'L L. REV. 731 (2011).

3 See Liang Tao, Breaking the Ice - Overview on the First Chinese Judgment Recognized and

Enforced by the United States Courts, 9 CHINA’S FOREIGN TRADE 60 (2010).

4 See Dougherty, supra note 2.

5 See Ariel Ye et al., First Landmark Decision in Obtaining Recognition and Enforcement of a PRC

Court Judgment in the US, KING & WOOD MALLESONS, http://www.kingandwood.com/article.aspx?id=

First-Landmark-Decision-in-Obtaining-Recognition-and-Enforcement-of-APRC-Court-Judgment-in-the

-US&language=en (last visited December 8, 2012).

6 See Whytock & Robertson, supra note 2, at 1483.

7 See Appellant’s Opening Brief at 4–12, Sanlian, 425 F. App’x 580 (9th Cir. 2011) (No.

09-56629).

8 Id. at 6–7 (After the case was stayed on FNC grounds by the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1998,

Sanlian and Pinghu initiated arbitration proceedings against Robinson in the International Court of

Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. In 2000, the arbitral tribunal ruled that it lacked

jurisdiction because no valid arbitration agreement existed between the two Chinese companies and

Robinson. Subsequently, the plaintiffs re-filed an action in the Hubei high court in 2001.).

9 See Sanlian, supra note 1.

10 See Liang, supra note 3, at 63; see generally Chinese Judgment Enforced in the United States,

CONFLICT OF LAWS.NET (Aug 24, 2009), http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/chinese-judgment-enforced

-in-the -united-states/.