Guimaraes v. Northrop Gruman 10/30/07 CA2/8

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2008 » Guimaraes v. Northrop Gruman 10/30/07 CA2/8

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B194205

Case Date: 01/23/2008

Preview:Filed 10/30/07

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

RENATO GUIMARAES, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.

B194205 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 345356)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Elizabeth A. Grimes, Judge. Reversed. Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, Walter J. Lack and Steven C. Shuman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, Ed W. Green, A. Kristine Floyd and Robert C. Shaia for Defendant and Respondent. Benedon & Serlin, Gerald M. Serlin and Douglas G. Benedon, as amicus curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

________________________________

SUMMARY An action seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign money judgment under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act is subject to the 10-year statute of limitations applicable to actions on sister state judgments (Code of Civil Procedure section 337.5, subdivision 3), rather than to the four-year catch-all statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 343. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 30, 2005, Renato Guimaraes, a Brazilian lawyer, filed a complaint against Northrop Grumman Corporation. Guimaraes sought recognition and enforcement of a judgment for attorney fees rendered in Brazil. Guimaraes filed his first amended complaint, and summons was issued and filed on the first amended complaint, on May 12, 2006. The judgment Guimaraes sought to enforce was rendered in Brazil on June 30, 2000. The judgment occurred in a lawsuit filed after the crash of a Brazilian aircraft in October 1996, in which 99 persons were killed. Many of the families of crash victims filed lawsuits in Orange County, but Northrop obtained a stay of those cases on forum non conveniens grounds, and agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Brazilian courts. Guimaraes and another Brazilian lawyer, Irineu Strenger, then brought an action in Brazil. The Brazilian court rendered a judgment in favor of the families, concluding the "initiating cause" of the crash was a malfunction of a thrust reverser manufactured by Northrop. The judgment awarded damages against Northrop aggregating more than $100 million, and included an award of attorney fees in the amount of 20 percent of the damages. Northrop appealed the judgment, and subsequently reached settlements with many of the families. Guimaraes's complaint seeking recognition of the judgment for attorney fees alleged that, under Brazilian law, the award of attorney fees is a judgment in favor of the attorneys, not the families. "It vests immediately and is not subject to any appeal in Brazil with respect to any of the cases that have settled." Guimaraes asked the court, under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (Uniform Act), "to 2

recognize and enforce the Judgment . . . to the extent that Judgment awards attorneys fees, by entering a domestic judgment in a dollar amount equivalent to the amount of the Brazilian Judgment, with post-judgment interest, costs, and fees as appropriate." Northrop demurred to Guimaraes's first amended complaint on two grounds: first, it was barred by the statute of limitations; and second, Strenger, the other attorney in whose favor attorney fees were awarded, was an indispensable party without whom the action could not proceed. The trial court concluded the action was time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 343. The court, in the alternative, dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to join Strenger as an indispensable party. Guimaraes moved for reconsideration "based on new facts presented through the declaration of Clito Fornaciari . . . ." Fornaciari, a professor of civil procedure and former president of the Sao Paulo State Attorneys Association, stated that a judgment for attorney fees is not final and enforceable in Brazil while the judgment is on appeal. Thus, even if the statute of limitations for filing an action under the Uniform Act were four years, the judgment for attorney fees as to any particular family's case would not become final and enforceable, and Guimaraes's cause of action under the Uniform Act therefore did not accrue, until that family concluded a settlement. Guimaraes contended he could amend his complaint to allege that numerous settlements occurred within four years of his filing this action. He also presented a declaration from his attorney showing that Strenger had agreed to join the litigation as a plaintiff. A week after Guimaraes moved for reconsideration, the trial court signed and entered a judgment dismissing his action with prejudice. Guimaraes's motion for reconsideration, as well as a subsequent motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, were denied, and Northrop's objections to Guimaraes's expert declarations on Brazilian law were sustained.

3

Guimaraes filed a timely appeal. This court granted a request by Benedon & Serlin, a law firm active in the representation of businesses and individuals who have brought collection actions in California involving foreign judgments, to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Guimaraes. DISCUSSION This case presents a question of first impression in California: what statute of limitations is applicable to an action, brought under the Uniform Act, for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign money judgment? The parties and amicus curiae offer three different answers:

Download Guimaraes v. Northrop Gruman 10/30/07 CA2/8.pdf