The case of the day is Qiu v. Zhang (C.D. Cal. 2017). In 2013, Qinrong Qiu lent 21 million RMB to Hongying Zhang and his wife, Xinghua Yu, in China. Zhang and Yu defaulted, and Qiu sued them in the Suzhou Industrial Park People’s Court. That court entered judgment for Qiu in 2016, and the Intermediate People’s Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province affirmed the judgment.
Qiu alleged that Zhang and Yu lived in California with Zhang’s son, Jie Yu. Zhang and Jie Yu, still a minor, owned real property there as joint tenants. Zhang and Jie Yu transferred the property to Boxwood International LLC, for nominal consideration. Jie Yu was the sole member of the LLC. The LLC then sold the property to a third party for $750,000. Qiu alleged that this was a fraudulent transfer. He sued Zhang and Xinghua You on the Chinese judgment, and all three for the fraudulent transfer.
The defendants defaulted. The court entered judgment for Qiu, finding that he had met his burden to show that the judgment was entitled to recognition:
The evidence Plaintiff submitted demonstrates the Chinese court granted a monetary recovery and that the judgement is final, conclusive, and enforceable. Plaintiff has also demonstrated that the Chinese court was an impartial tribunal that had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Zhang and X. Yu and that both defendants were afforded adequate due process in the China Action.
Of course, since the case was decided on a default, Qiu didn’t really have to prove any of this; he just had to allege it. Still, it is good to see the trend of comity in this area in light of the recent big news about China’s recognition of a US commercial judgment.