## Facts

- Bridgeway Corporation, a Liberian company, obtained a money judgment against Citibank from the Supreme Court of Liberia on July 28, 1995.
- The judgment was entered during Liberia’s civil war, a period marked by severe governmental instability and competing centers of power.
- Bridgeway sued in the Southern District of New York to recognize and enforce the Liberian judgment under New York’s Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act and principles of comity.
- Citibank opposed recognition, arguing that Liberia at the relevant time lacked a judicial system providing impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with due process.
- The district court denied Bridgeway’s summary judgment motion and granted summary judgment sua sponte to Citibank, finding (1) no judicial estoppel and (2) the Liberian judicial system during the relevant period did not satisfy the Act’s due process requirement.
- Bridgeway appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Citibank was judicially estopped from challenging the adequacy of Liberia’s judicial system because it previously participated in Liberian litigation.
2. Whether Liberia, during the relevant civil-war period, lacked “a system” providing impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process, requiring mandatory nonrecognition under New York’s Recognition Act.
3. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte to the nonmoving party.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed.
- Citibank was not judicially estopped from contesting the adequacy of Liberia’s judiciary.
- The record established as a matter of law that Liberia at the relevant time did not have a judicial system providing impartial tribunals or due-process-compatible procedures; the Liberian judgment was therefore not recognizable in New York.
- Sua sponte summary judgment was proper because the dispositive issues were fully aired and there was no genuine dispute of material fact on the condition of the Liberian judicial system.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York’s Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act, a foreign country money judgment must not be recognized if rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process.
- The due process inquiry is systemic: it examines the foreign country’s judicial system as a whole, not whether the particular case appeared fair.
- Judicial estoppel generally requires a party to have successfully maintained an inconsistent position in a prior proceeding; participation in foreign litigation, without more, does not bar a later systemic challenge to the foreign judiciary in a recognition action.
- A court may grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party where the relevant issues have been fully presented and the record shows no material factual dispute.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that New York could not recognize or enforce Bridgeway’s Liberian judgment because the evidence showed Liberia’s civil-war-era judiciary lacked systemwide impartiality and due-process-compatible procedures, and Citibank was not barred by judicial estoppel from raising that defense.


Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2000)