The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments by US courts are mainly based on the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act ("Act") and the corresponding legislation adopted by each state. Thirty out of fifty states in the United States have adopted at least one version of the Act, including California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Washington, Florida, which have the most commercial activities with China.
When each state adopts the Act, the general framework is the same, but modifications and supplements from the state will be added. Therefore, specific cases need to refer to the final version of the Act passed by each state. But generally speaking, in states that have adopted the Act, in addition to the three situations listed in the Act where foreign judgments cannot be recognized and the eight situations where foreign judgments do not need to be recognized, US courts must recognize foreign judgments. Among them, the three situations where foreign judgments cannot be recognized include:
1. The judgment was made in an unfair court or under a judicial system that does not comply with the requirements of due process of law;
2. Foreign courts have no personal jurisdiction over the defendant;
3. Foreign courts do not have jurisdiction over matters.
The eight situations that do not require recognition of foreign judgments include:
1. The defendant in a foreign court lawsuit did not receive timely notice of the lawsuit, making it impossible for the defendant to defend themselves;
2. The judgment was obtained through fraudulent means, resulting in the losing party not having sufficient opportunity to present their case;
3. The judgment or the litigation reasons or relief requirements on which the judgment is based conflict with the public policy of this state or the United States;
4. The judgment conflicts with another final and decisive judgment;
5. The procedure of a foreign court violates the agreement reached between the parties, according to which disputes should be resolved through means other than the procedure of the foreign court;
6. In cases where jurisdiction is solely based on personal service, foreign courts are a very inconvenient venue for adjudicating litigation;
7. The judgment was made when there were significant doubts about the integrity of the court that made the judgment;
8. The specific procedures of the foreign court that led to the judgment do not comply with the requirements of due process of law.