## Facts

- Midbrook, a Dutch flower-bulb exporter, sold bulbs to Holland America, a Washington reseller.
- A billing dispute arose, and Midbrook sued Holland America in a Dutch trial court.
- Holland America sought broad, U.S.-style discovery; the Dutch trial court denied broad discovery but permitted limited discovery.
- The Dutch trial court entered a money judgment for Midbrook.
- On appeal, a Dutch appellate court reversed one trial-court factual finding concerning an alleged settlement agreement, reopened and broadened discovery, and reduced the damages award.
- Midbrook filed a diversity action in federal court in Washington to recognize and enforce the Dutch appellate judgment under Washington’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFCMJRA).
- Holland America opposed recognition under the UFCMJRA’s discretionary nonrecognition ground for proceedings “not compatible with the requirements of due process of law,” and sought additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).

## Issues

1. Under Washington’s UFCMJRA, does limited foreign discovery and an appellate court’s reversal of a factual finding make the specific foreign proceeding “not compatible with the requirements of due process of law,” barring recognition of the foreign money judgment?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Holland America’s Rule 56(d) request for additional discovery before granting summary judgment recognizing the foreign judgment?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment recognizing and enforcing the Dutch money judgment.
- The court held that the UFCMJRA due-process inquiry is whether the resisting party was denied fundamental fairness in the specific foreign proceeding, not whether the foreign system matches U.S. constitutional procedure.
- The court concluded Holland America was not denied fundamental fairness where it had notice, representation, opportunities to present objections, and reasoned decisions at each stage.
- The court held that narrower Dutch discovery and appellate reconsideration of a factual finding were procedural differences insufficient to trigger nonrecognition.
- The court affirmed denial of Rule 56(d) discovery because the existing record was sufficient and additional discovery would not create a genuine dispute of material fact on fundamental fairness.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington’s UFCMJRA, the discretionary nonrecognition ground for proceedings “not compatible with the requirements of due process of law” applies only when the specific foreign proceeding denied fundamental fairness.
- The relevant fairness indicators include notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and reasoned adjudication; the test does not require conformity to U.S. discovery practices or other domestic procedural norms.
- Procedural differences between legal systems (including narrower discovery or appellate authority to revisit trial-level fact determinations) do not, without more, establish incompatibility with due process for purposes of recognizing a foreign-country money judgment.
- A district court may deny Rule 56(d) discovery when the movant cannot show that additional discovery is likely to produce facts creating a genuine dispute material to the recognition analysis.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Washington courts may recognize a Dutch money judgment despite procedural differences from U.S. litigation practice, because the UFCMJRA’s due-process exception turns on fundamental fairness in the particular foreign proceeding, and Holland America failed to show unfairness or a need for further discovery.


Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B.V. v. Holland America Bulb Farms, Inc., 874 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. 2017)