Defendant guaranteed a loan from plaintiff to one of the defendant’s businesses. The transaction took place in Russia. It provided for jurisdiction in a Moscow court and for service on the defendant at a residence address in Moscow which he had registered with the government as his abode. This opinion holds that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff enforcement of its $11 million judgment against defendant obtained in the Moscow court. Defendant failed to establish any valid defense under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act. The Moscow court had personal jurisdiction as the transaction had occurred there and the parties agreed to litigate disputes in that court. Official court documents of the Moscow court adequately proved the Russian equivalent of complaint and summons were served on defendant’s Moscow address by mail and wire. Even though the defendant had fled to the United States a month earlier, he didn’t inform either the plaintiff or the Russian government, so service on the Moscow address listed in the guarantee and as defendant’s government-registered address was reasonably calculated to reach him and thus sufficient.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (Dato, J.); March 12, 2018; 2018 WL 1250637