G. Geerlings Export B.V. v. Van Hoekelen Greenhouses, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-1292
| Decision Date | 14 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-1292 |
| Parties | G. GEERLINGS EXPORT B.V., Plaintiff, v. VAN HOEKELEN GREENHOUSES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
Presently before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) and a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Answer's Counterclaim (Doc. 22) filed by Plaintiff G. Geerlings Export B.V. ("Geerlings"). In its Complaint (Doc. 1), Geerlings seeks recognition of a foreign judgment in its favor under Pennsylvania's Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act (the "Recognition Act" or "Act"). Defendant, Van Hoekelen Greenhouses, Inc. ("VHG"), filed an Amended Answer (Doc. 12) asserting various affirmative defenses to recognition of the foreign judgment and a counterclaim for fraud. Because Geerlings has established a prima facie case for recognition, and because VHG has failed to demonstrate that a defense to recognition applies or show how its proposed discovery would otherwise preclude summary judgment, the Court will grant Geerlings's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and recognize the foreign judgment. Additionally, because VHG had ample opportunity to raise its claim for fraud before the Dutch courts, its counterclaim fails to state a claim as a matter of law. Geerlings's Motion to Dismiss will therefore be granted.
The facts presented in the summary judgment record, viewed in the light most favorable to Defendant, are as follows:
Plaintiff Geerlings is a flower bulb grower based in The Netherlands. (Def.'s Counterstatement of Material Facts ("DCMF") at 6, ¶ 1, Doc. 29; Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts ("PSMF") Ex. 2 ("Appeal Judgment") at 1, Doc. 16-2.) Geerlings has done business with Defendant VHG since 1988. (DCMF at 1, ¶ 3.) VHG is a family business that grows and distributes flower bulbs from its location in McAdoo, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 1, ¶ 2.) In 2002, VHG purchased bulbs from Geerlings for delivery to Walmart in the United States. (Id. at 2, ¶ 4.) However, the bulbs delivered by Geerlings to VHG contained inaccurate barcodes, which resulted in Walmart refusing to pay VHG for the order and VHG losing all of Walmart's dry bulb business (the "Walmart Barcode Dispute"). (Id. at 2, ¶¶ 5-8.) VHG made partial payment to Geerlings with respect to the Walmart bulbs, but did not pay the invoices in full because VHG believed that either Geerlings or Geerlings's printer was responsible for the incorrect barcode. (Id. at 2, ¶ 9; PSMF ¶ 4, Doc. 16; Am. Answer ¶ 70, Doc. 12.) Because VHG did not pay Geerlings's invoices in full, Geerlings decided to sue VHG for full payment on its invoices plus interest and costs. (DCMF at 2, ¶ 10; PSMF ¶ 6.)
On January 8, 2008, Geerlings initiated a civil action against VHG in the Court of First Instance in The Hague, The Netherlands, by filing a "dagvaarding.1" (DCMF at 2, ¶ 10; PSMF ¶ 5; Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Nabben Decl. ¶ 2, Doc. 15-1.) Geerlings claimed the principal balance that it was owed by VHG was 336,737.38 EURO. (DCMF at 3, ¶ 12; PSMF ¶ 7.) In support of this claim, Geerlings attached a spreadsheet to its complaint that listed the relevant invoice history between the parties and purported to show the principal balance that VHG owed Geerlings. (See Am. Answer Ex. B.) VHG filed a counterclaim against Geerlings seeking damages arising out of the Walmart Barcode Dispute. (DCMF at 6-7, ¶¶ 8-9; Am. Answer ¶ 15.) At trial before the Court of First Instance in 2009, VHG was in possession of two documents that are at the center of the present dispute (see DCMF at 7, ¶ 14): (1) the aforementioned spreadsheet that Geerlings attached to its Dutch complaint purporting to show the total amount of principal owed by VHG to be 336,737.38 EURO () (Am. Answer Ex. B.); and (2) a letter fromGeerlings to VHG dated September 17, 2002, which purports to confirm that VHG had made payment on eleven invoices2 related to Walmart orders (the "2002 letter") (id. Ex. A.). Both VHG's president and secretary/treasurer were present at the "comparitie van partijen" proceeding before the Court of First Instance, during which they made declarations and answered questions to provide the court with information. (DCMF at 7, ¶ 13.) Geerlings and VHG presented evidence in the Court of First Instance. (Id. at 7, ¶ 12.) The Court of First Instance issued a judgment in favor of Geerlings, finding VHG responsible for the incorrect barcodes. (Am. Answer ¶ 74.) The Dutch trial court concluded that the principal VHG owes on Geerlings's invoices is 336,737.38 EURO. (DCMF at 8, ¶ 16; Am. Answer ¶ 74.) The court rejected VHG's counterclaim. (See Appeals Judgment ¶ 32; Nabben Decl. ¶ 8.)
On or about August 13, 2010, VHG filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal in The Hague, The Netherlands. (DCMF at 8, ¶ 17.) The Court of Appeal issued a judgment on December 24, 2013 (the "Appeal Judgment3"), which affirmed the finding of the Court of First Instance that the principal owed by VHG is 336,737.38 EURO. (Id. at 8-9, ¶¶ 18, 21.) The Appeal Judgment directs VHG to pay Geerlings 475,976.18 EURO plus statutory interest on 459,641.18 EURO from January 1, 2008 until the day of final settlement.4 (Id. at 9, ¶¶ 22-23;see also Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Nabben Expert Decl. ¶¶ 12-13, Doc. 15-2.) VHG denies that the amount of principal it owes on Geerlings's invoices was ever litigated or disputed before the Court of First Instance. (Compare DCMF at 7, ¶¶ 10-11, with PSMF ¶¶ 10-11.) However, the record indicates that the Dutch courts did consider the amount of money VHG owed to Geerlings. (See, e.g., Appeal Judgment 4, ¶ 16 (); id. at 5, ¶ 16 (). VHG does not cite to any record evidence supporting its position that this issue was not raised in the Dutch actions. (See DCMF Ex. 1, Van Hoekelen Decl. ¶¶ 11-15, Doc. 29-1 ().) Both parties were represented by counsel in the Court of First Instance and in the Court of Appeal. (DCMF at 9, ¶ 24; Appeal Judgment at 1.)
The Court of Appeal transmitted its judgment to VHG's attorney on or about December 24, 2013. (DCMF at 10, ¶ 29.) On the advice of its counsel, VHG did not attempt to appeal the Appeal Judgment to the Supreme Court of The Netherlands. (Id. at 10, ¶ 30; see also Nabben Expert Decl. ¶ 16.) The parties dispute whether VHG had the right to bring such an appeal. On April 30, 2015, the bailiff transmitted the judgment of the Court of Appeal to VHG at its McAdoo, Pennsylvania office. (DCMF at 10, ¶ 31.) Geerlings subsequently made a written demand to VHG for payment of the judgment, but VHG has not paid the judgment in full or in part. (Id. at 10-11, ¶¶ 32-33.)
VHG refuses to satisfy the Appeal Judgment because it believes the award might amount to a double recovery for Geerlings (see Def.'s Br. in Opp'n 2, 10, 12, Doc. 28), which VHG claims constitutes a fraud and contravenes Pennsylvania public policy. (See Am.Answer ¶ 62; Def.'s Br. in Opp'n 11-12.) Specifically, VHG argues that the principal balance spreadsheet Geerlings submitted with its Dutch complaint included ostensibly outstanding invoices that VHG had actually paid. (Def.'s Br. in Opp'n 4-6.) VHG contends the Appeal Judgment therefore amounts to a double recovery because the Dutch courts' award calculations included invoices that were not in fact outstanding. (Id. at 11-12.) In support of this position, VHG points to a portion of the Court of Appeal's decision which recognizes that the Court of First Instance held that VHG made "unspecified payments" that could be used "to settle outstanding debts dating from before [January 8, 2003] . . . ." (Appeal Judgment ¶ 13; see DCMF at 3, ¶ 14.) Additionally, VHG proffers various communications between the parties that allegedly show that invoices included in the principal balance spreadsheet had already been satisfied and that the spreadsheet failed to properly account for certain payments. (DCMF at 4, ¶ 18.) Specifically, VHG points to: (a) the 2002 letter, which indicates VHG made a payment of 411,658.29 EURO that covered eleven outstanding invoices related to Walmart orders and left VHG with an account credit of 3,135.31 EURO. VHG contends this letter reveals that, in the Dutch litigation, Geerlings sought 41,833.32 EURO in damages on invoices that VHG had satisfied in full, and that the spreadsheet failed to account for the 3,135.31 EURO credit it was due (id. at 4, ¶ 18(B)); (b) a letter from Geerlings dated June 7, 2004 that purports to show that VHG made a payment on a particular invoice that is not accurately represented in the principal balance spreadsheet (id. at 4, ¶ 18(A)); and (c) a letter from Geerlings dated July 15, 2003 that indicates Geerlings provided VHG with a credit in the amount of $37,719.04 (38,839.04 EURO) relating to freight costs on the Walmart bulbs that is not accounted for in the spreadsheet (id. at 4, ¶ 18(C)). VHG requests discovery on how much of the Appeal Judgment award it has already paid Geerlings via these "unspecified payments" so that the award can be modified downward accordingly. (DCMF at 3-4, ¶¶ 16-17; id. at 11, ¶ 33.)
On June 30, 2015, Geerlings filed the instant Complaint with this Court, seeking...
To continue reading
Request your trial