Carlo Moersch, a citizen and resident of the county of Luxembourg v. Charles S. Zahedi, a citizen and resident of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLO MOERSCH, a citizen and resident
of the county of Luxembourg,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES S. ZAHEDI, a citizen and
resident of California,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-55177
D.C. No.
8:16-cv-00151-CJC-KES
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Charles Zahedi appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment
to Carlo Moersch. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court’s decision whether to recognize a foreign-country money
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 24 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
judgment under California’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments
Recognition Act (the “Uniform Act”). See Ohno v. Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 1001–
02 & n.20 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
1. Zahedi has not carried his burden of establishing that his due process
rights were violated by the Luxembourg Court of Appeal. See Hyundai Sec. Co. v.
Lee, 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264, 268 (Ct. App. 2015). Though Zahedi alleges that he
lacked notice of the Luxembourg proceeding and was not present or represented by
counsel before the Luxembourg Court of Appeal, the record refutes these
allegations. An authenticated copy of the Luxembourg Court of Appeal’s
judgment indicates that Zahedi was represented. Zahedi cites his own declaration
to establish the contrary, but the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that the declaration fails to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(c)(4) and thus is inadmissible.1 See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d
1212, 1224 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. The 300,000 euros that Zahedi contests as a “fine or penalty” not
subject to recognition under the Uniform Act, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
1 We deny Zahedi’s motion to supplement the record with a 2010 letter
that he allegedly sent his Luxembourg counsel informing her that he had moved to
California. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) “cannot be used to add to or
enlarge the record on appeal to include material which was not before the district
court.” United States v. Walker, 601 F.2d 1051, 1054 (9th Cir. 1979).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
§ 1715(b)(2), was a compensatory award between civil litigants. It was not a
punitive judgment for a violation of a public offense. The award was therefore not
a “fine or penalty” for purposes of the Uniform Act and was subject to recognition.
See Java Oil Ltd. v. Sullivan, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177, 183–84 (Ct. App. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --