Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma

723 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 2, 2013 · No. 11-55081

Summary

This Ninth Circuit opinion addresses whether a U.S. district court must enforce a Japanese tort judgment against a religious organization under California’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. The court held that enforcing the foreign judgment does not constitute state action subject to constitutional scrutiny under the Religion Clauses. Additionally, the court found that neither the judgment nor its underlying cause of action was repugnant to U.S. or California public policy, thereby affirming the district court’s enforcement of the monetary award.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Marsha S. Berzon; Harry Pregerson; Susan P. Graber
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
July 2, 2013
Docket number
11-55081
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ohno and entered judgment enforcing the Japanese money judgment.
Standard of review
De novo review of the district court’s legal determination of repugnancy under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1716(b)–(c).
Precedential value
published
Parties
Yuko Yasuma, Saints of Glory Church v. Naoko Ohno
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

free exercise clausefirst amendmentstate actioncivil proceduretorts

Practice areas

civil procedureconstitutional lawtortsstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether enforcement of a foreign‑country money judgment constitutes state action subject to constitutional scrutiny.
  2. Whether the Japanese judgment or its underlying cause of action is repugnant to public policy under California’s Uniform Act, thereby justifying non‑recognition.

Holdings

  1. The district court’s enforcement of the Japanese money judgment does not constitute domestic state action that triggers constitutional review.
  2. Neither the judgment nor the cause of action is repugnant to California or federal public policy; therefore the district court was required to enforce the judgment.

Key quotations

We conclude that the district court’s enforcement of the Japanese judgment does not constitute domestic state action triggering constitutional scrutiny.
The Japanese judgment is not repugnant to public policy because the tort claims are analogous to those recognized under California law and do not offend the Religion Clauses.

Factual background

Naoko Ohno, a Japanese citizen, sued Yuko Yasuma and the Saints of Glory Church in Tokyo courts, alleging they fraudulently induced her to transfer nearly all of her assets to the Church. The Japanese courts awarded Ohno a $1.2 million tort judgment. Ohno then sought enforcement of that judgment in a California federal district court. The Church argued that enforcement would violate the Free Exercise Clause and that the judgment was repugnant to public policy.

Procedural history

Ohno obtained a $1.2 million tort judgment in Japan against the Church. She filed an action in the Central District of California to enforce that judgment under California’s Uniform Foreign‑Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. The district court recognized and enforced the judgment. The Church appealed, asserting constitutional and statutory grounds for non‑recognition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…