Case Note: Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus Co v Robinson Helicopter Co

• Published in: Asia Pacific law review Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 135 - 140
• Main Author: He, Qisheng
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hong Kong Routledge 01.01.2013; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Aircraft accidents & safety; Arbitration; Conventions; Court decisions; District courts; Enforcement; Federal court decisions; Helicopters; Jurisdiction; Litigation; State court decisions; State courts; Warranties; United States > US; China
• DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2013.11788270
• ISSN: 1019-2557

The first issue was the statute of limitation. [Robinson] argued that it agreed to toll the statute of limitations for the period beginning on the date that the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the California State court action, and ending on the date that the California State court action was finally dismissed. The District Court firstly granted Summary Judgment in favour of defendant on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired before the Chinese lawsuit was filed. The Ninth Circuit Court in its decisions in 20084 denied this conclusion and ruled that Robinson's agreement to toll the statute of limitations as a condition to the FNC stay of the California State action remained in place when the plaintiffs filed their complaints in China. 'There was no basis for finding that enforcement of the PRC judgment would violate California's public policy against state claims'.5 In the interest of protecting "the integrity of the judicial process', the Ninth Circuit Court also declined to consider Robinsons' argument regarding the Chinese domestic statute of limitation (the 2011 judgment, para 1). Finally, the Ninth Circuit Court specially stated in the first paragraph of the 2011 judgment that Robinson violated its promise to abide by any final judgment rendered in China. The Ninth Circuit Court held that accepting Robinson's argument that the Chinese judgment was not enforceable would create the perception that the California court was 'misled' in granting Robinson's forum non conveniens motion and would 'impose an unfair detriment' on the plaintiffs. Third, the 2009 judgment states that 'In order to accomplish the goal of encouraging reciprocal recognition of United States judgments abroad, courts have interpreted the UFMJRA as informing foreign nations of particular situations in which their judgments would definitely be recognized' (the 2009 judgment, para 20). In California, the California's UFMJRA § 1915 which was enacted in 1907 sought to improve 'the prospects of enforcing Californian judgments abroad (in foreign states following a reciprocity rule) by making it clear that foreign judgments would be recognized in California'.10 However, many questions still need to be settled. First, Sanlian was initially recognised by the District Court, and its ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court. It will be difficult for Chinese courts to understand and decide at which level, federal, district or both, a US court's judgment should be recognised and enforced. Second, Sanlian addresses disputes over negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. At what level of generality should a Chinese court define a 'comparable' judgment by a US court? Such situations will complicate a Chinese court's estimation about the principle of reciprocity between the two countries.