Bill Text: NJ S368 | 2010-2011 | Regular Session | Introduced

---

Bill Title: Permits NJ courts to not enforce defamation judgments from foreign countries under certain circumstances.

Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2010-01-12 - Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee [S368 Detail]

Download: New_Jersey-2010-S368-Introduced.html

---

SENATE, No. 368

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

214th LEGISLATURE

 

PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2010 SESSION

 

 

Sponsored by:

Senator  LORETTA WEINBERG

District 37 (Bergen)

Senator  ROBERT W. SINGER

District 30 (Burlington, Mercer, Monmouth and Ocean)

 

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS

     Permits NJ courts to not enforce defamation judgments from foreign countries under certain circumstances.

 

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

     Introduced Pending Technical Review by Legislative Counsel

  

An Act concerning defamation judgments from foreign countries and amending P.L.1997, c.96.

 

     Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

 

     1.    Section 5 of P.L.1997, c.96 (C.2A:49A-20) is amended to read as follows:

     5.    a.  A foreign country money-judgment is not conclusive if:

     (1)   the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law;

     (2)   the foreign country court did not have personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor; or

     (3)   the foreign country court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

     b.    A foreign country money-judgment need not be recognized if:

     (1)   the judgment debtor in the proceedings in the foreign country court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable the judgment debtor to defend;

     (2)   the judgment was obtained by fraud;

     (3)   the cause of action on which the foreign judgment is based is contrary to the public policy of this State;

     (4)   the judgment conflicts with a prior final and conclusive judgment;

     (5)   the proceedings in the foreign country court were contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled, other than by proceedings in that court; [or]

     (6)   in the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign country court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action ; or

     (7)   the cause of action resulted in a defamation judgment obtained in a foreign country, unless, prior to the collection of the judgment, a court in this State first determines that the defamation law applied in the foreign country provides at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as is provided by the Constitutions of the United States and New Jersey.

(cf: P.L.1997,c.96,s.5.)

 

     2.    This act shall take effect immediately.

 

STATEMENT

 

      This bill provides that a defamation money-judgment from a foreign state need not be recognized by a court in New Jersey unless the New Jersey court determines that the defamation law applied in the foreign country provides at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as is provided by the Constitutions of the United States and New Jersey.

     Under current law, a New Jersey court need not recognize a foreign country money-judgment if:

·        the judgment debtor in the proceedings in the foreign country court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable the judgment debtor to defend;

·        the judgment was obtained by fraud;

·        the cause of action on which the foreign judgment is based is contrary to the public policy of this State;

·        the judgment conflicts with a prior final and conclusive judgment;

·        the proceedings in the foreign country court were contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled, other than by proceedings in that court; or

·        in the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign country court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action.

     The bill is in response to a case where a Saudi Arabian citizen obtained a defamation judgment from an English court against Rachel Ehrenfeld, an author living in New York.  The book, which was published in the United States, concerned the funding of terrorist organizations.  The bill is similar to a statute enacted in New York in response to the Ehrenfeld case, Chapter 66 of 2008.