Manco Contracting v. Bezdikian 5/30/07 CA2/8

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2007 » Manco Contracting v. Bezdikian 5/30/07 CA2/8

State: California

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

Docket No: B182885

Case Date: 08/22/2007

Preview:Filed 5/30/07

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

MANCO CONTRACTING CO. (W.L.L.), Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KIRKOR BEZDIKIAN, Defendant and Respondent.

B182885 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC081737)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John L. Segal, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Benedon & Serlin, Gerald M. Serlin and Douglas G. Benedon for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye, Gary A. Nye and Michael G. Kline for Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Manco Contracting Co. (W.L.L.) ("Manco") sued respondent Kirkor Bezdikian ("Bezdikian") in Los Angeles Superior Court to domesticate a multimillion dollar judgment Manco had obtained against Bezdikian in Qatar, a Persian Gulf emirate. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant Kirkor Bezdikian based on a four-year statute of limitations. Manco contends that no statute of limitations applies to the judgment of a foreign county; if a statute of limitations applies, it would be 10 years, the same applicable to a sister state judgment; and even assuming the four-year statute of limitations applied, this lawsuit had been timely filed because the Qatar judgment became final after appeal on May 23, 2000, less than four years before the filing of this lawsuit on May 20, 2004. Manco had obtained a multi-million dollar judgment against Bezdikian in Qatar in November 1997. Bezdikian appealed and then left the country, eventually residing in California. His civil appeal was stayed while he was criminally prosecuted in Qatar; the stay was lifted when his conviction was affirmed. On May 23, 2000, the Qatari appellate court amended the appealed civil judgment by reducing the money judgment from more than $4.2 million to approximately $3.76 million and issued a new judgment with an award of costs to Manco. The instant lawsuit for domestication of the foreign money judgment was filed on May 20, 2004, pursuant to California's Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act ("UFMJRA" or "the Act") over four years from the initial judgment in Qatar but within four years from the Qatari appellate court's new judgment. The gravamen of Bezdikian's motion for summary judgment was that the instant lawsuit was time-barred by a four year statute of limitations. Manco argued primarily
1

Manco argued that the judgment was not final until the May 23, 2000, Qatari Court of Appeal adjusted judgment and that Bezdikian had not provided competent evidence to support his motion. Manco posits the dispute as follows: "Bezdikian contends in his papers that Manco's claim accrued with the trial court judgment was entered in 1997; Manco contends that the claim accrued only upon entry of the appellate judgment in May 2000. The issue is critical because it determines whether Manco's complaint was timely filed." (Underlining in original.) 2

1

that the action was not barred because the judgment was not final in Qatar until the appeal in Qatar was decided. The trial court agreed with Bezdikian, relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 1713.2 in deciding the Qatari trial court judgment was final, conclusive and enforceable where rendered "` even though an appeal therefrom is pending or . . . subject to appeal.'" This appeal follows. We read the Act to preclude finality and/or conclusiveness until the Qatari appeal was decided. According to Manco's expert, the Qatari judgment was not final until the appeal was adjudicated. The instant lawsuit was filed within four years of the appellate decision in Qatar and thus was timely filed under that expert's opinion. The MSJ should have been denied, and we therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL Manco contends: 1. Manco's action was not barred by a 4-year statute of limitations. If any statute of limitations were applicable, it would be the 10-year limitation period applicable to sister state judgments 2. Even if this action were subject to a 4-year statute of limitations, it was brought timely, within 4 years of the Qatari appellate court's final judgment. Respondent contends that appellant conceded the applicability of a 4-year statute of limitation in the trial court and cannot now raise issues dependent on the inapplicability of the 4-year statute of limitations. Even without the concession, the 4year statute applies (Code of Civ. Proc.

Download Manco Contracting v. Bezdikian 5/30/07 CA2/8.pdf