Somportex Lmt v Philadelphia Chewing Gum case brief summary

Somportex Lmt v Philadelphia Chewing Gum (3^rd Cir 1971)

o   Background:

§ P Somportex (English co) sued D (American co) in England

§ D conditionally appeared in English court (ie submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, except to any objections that you make to the jurisdiction), but decided not to file a defense

§ Default J against D; P came to U.S. federal court to enforce it

§ D argued that the English judgment should not be honored

o   Issue: Should the judgment of the English Court be enforced? (YES, due to Comity)

o   Reasoning:

§ Comity

·         If the foreign judgment appears to have been rendered by a competent court, etc, then courts of other countries should honor it

·         Comity should be withheld only when its acceptance would be contrary or prejudicial to the interest of the nation called upon to give it effect

§ Jurisdiction

·         Through D’s initial conditional appearance it had its chance to defend itself against an unfavorable judgment and decided not to; D shouldn’t get a second chance

§ Due Process

·         The English procedure comports with PA’s standards of DP

·         the fact that the judgment was obtained by D’s default does not dilute its effectiveness (note: not all courts agree with this, b/c they think that D never got his “first bite” at the apple)

o   In the absence of fraud or collusion, a default judgment is as conclusive an adjudication as when rendered after answer and complete contest in the open courtroom

§ Damages

·         PA law doesn’t grant damages in cases such as this

·         However, the variance with English law does not “tend to clearly injure the public health, etc” of PA

·         So the English damage award does not offend PA’s pub. policy