## Facts

- A New Jersey corporation entered an arrangement in Italy with an Italian-based individual to pursue marketing opportunities for the corporation’s products in Italy; the agreement was described as oral and negotiated in Italy.
- The individual sued the corporation in an Italian court for unpaid compensation.
- The corporation did not appear in the Italian action, and the Italian court entered a default judgment for the individual.
- The individual later sued in a New Jersey district court to recognize and enforce the Italian default judgment against the corporation’s assets in New Jersey.
- After trial, the New Jersey district court recognized and enforced the Italian judgment.
- The corporation appealed, contesting recognition on personal-jurisdiction and fraud grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the Italian court had a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over the corporation, under a minimum-contacts analysis, such that New Jersey could recognize and enforce the Italian judgment as a matter of comity.
2. Whether the Italian default judgment was procured by fraud such that New Jersey should refuse recognition.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey district court’s judgment enforcing the Italian default judgment.
- The court held that the Italian court’s exercise of jurisdiction satisfied a minimum-contacts standard based on the corporation’s purposeful commercial activity directed to Italy.
- The court rejected the fraud challenge, finding no adequate showing that the Italian judgment was procured by fraud.

## Legal Principles

- New Jersey may recognize and enforce a foreign-country judgment under comity if the foreign court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and recognition does not offend New Jersey public policy.
- The jurisdictional basis of a foreign judgment is open to inquiry in the enforcing forum unless it was actually and fully litigated in the foreign proceeding.
- For recognition purposes, personal jurisdiction may be assessed using a minimum-contacts framework: jurisdiction is proper when the defendant purposefully acts to obtain benefits within the foreign forum and could reasonably foresee litigation there, consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
- Fraud is a narrow ground for denying recognition of a foreign judgment and requires substantial proof of fraudulent procurement, not mere dissatisfaction with a default judgment or the foreign proceedings.

## Conclusion

New Jersey enforced an Italian default judgment because the defendant’s purposeful commercial relationship aimed at the Italian market established sufficient minimum contacts for Italian jurisdiction, and the defendant failed to substantiate a claim that the judgment was procured by fraud.


Mercandino v. Devoe & Raynolds, Inc., 181 N.J. Super. 105, 436 A.2d 942 (App. Div. 1981)