The Republic of Nicaragua v. The Lopez-Goyne Family

Background

Nicaragua filed an amended petition seeking recognition and enforcement of pecuniary obligations imposed by a March 1, 2023 arbitration award issued under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, known as the ICSID Convention. The arbitration tribunal had ruled against David A. Barish and Gale Ruth Feuer Barish, acting as trustees of the Barish Family Trust of 2008, and others who had brought claims against Nicaragua.

The respondents asked the court to dismiss the petition as to them. They argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, meaning legal authority over them. They relied on Supreme Court precedent requiring sufficient connections, or “minimum contacts,” between a defendant and the forum in ordinary jurisdictional cases. They also argued that venue—the federal judicial district where the case may proceed—was improper.

Personal Jurisdiction

Nicaragua did not argue that the Barish respondents had minimum contacts with California. Instead, it argued that their ownership of real property in California was sufficient in an action seeking to enforce an already-issued award.

The court agreed. It explained that the Supreme Court had recognized that, once a competent tribunal determines that a defendant owes a debt, enforcement may proceed in a state where the defendant owns property, even if that state might not have had authority to decide the original dispute. The Ninth Circuit had applied that principle to a later action enforcing a monetary judgment based solely on the defendant’s ownership of property in the forum.

The court further concluded that the ICSID award could be treated as a prior judgment for this purpose. Under 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, the pecuniary obligations imposed by an ICSID award must be enforced and given the same full faith and credit as a final judgment of a state court. The court therefore found that it had personal jurisdiction over the Barish respondents based on their California property.

Venue and Disposition

The court rejected the venue argument. It applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which permits venue in any federal district where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction when the defendants do not all reside in one state and a substantial part of the events did not occur in one district. Because the Barish respondents were subject to personal jurisdiction in the district for this enforcement action, the court held that venue was proper.

The court denied the Barish respondents’ motion to dismiss. It vacated the hearing scheduled for October 25, 2024 and decided the matter based on the written submissions. The court also declined to consider the respondents’ request for certification for an interlocutory appeal because they raised that request for the first time in their reply, leaving Nicaragua no opportunity to respond. The court noted that the cases cited by the respondents did not involve actions to enforce a prior judgment.