Request Judicial Notice

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 4, 2021

Ix) \DOO-dQthbJ 21 CV375764 Santa Clara - Civil MIKAEL KOLTAI (State Bar No. 79495) Attorney at Law 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-91 ll Email: mikael@koltailaw.com LAW OFFICE 0F ERNEST MOONEY W. Ernest Mooney (State Bar No. 82416) 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 296-7557 Email: emlaw92657@xahoo.com Attorneys for Plaintiff KINGDOM OF SWEDEN L. Wang Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 3/30/2021 2:29 PM Reviewed By: L. Wang Case #21 CV375764 Envelope: 6139844 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA KINGDOM OF SWEDEN, Plaintiff, V. NILOOFAR GHORESH-ZADEH aka NlLOOFAR GHORESHI-ZADEH aka NILOOFAR GHORESHI aka NILOOFAR ZADEH aka NILOOFAR GHORESHIZADEH; and DOES l to 20, Inclusive. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 21 CV375764 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Complaint Filed: January 4, 2021 REQUEST FORJUDICIAL NOTICE l0 \DOOHIO‘UI-b-LH Pursuant to the provisions of California Evidence Code Sections 452(0 and 453, Plaintiff Kingdom 0f Sweden requests that this Court take judicial notice of the following statutory, regulatory, and decisional laws ofthe Kingdom Of Sweden, and of public entities in the Kingdom Of Sweden: l. Swedish Study Support Act SFS 1973:349, Chapter 1, §§ 1, 2, 3; Chapter 8 § l; and Chapter 9 § 2c, which provide for interest charges and administrative fees in the repayment of student loans. True and correct copies ofthese statutes, accompanied by certified English translations, are attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 2. Swedish Limitations Act SFS 1981:130, §§ 2, 5, and 6, which provide that a claim becomes barred ten years after it was made unless the limitation is interrupted before that, and which provide for the disruption of the statute of limitations upon certain events. True and correct copies of these statutes, accompanied by cartified English translations, are attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 3. Proposal by the Swedish Government 201 0/1 I :1 13, § 6.4, which explains the reasons for increasing the statute of limitations to 25 years for the recovery of unpaid student loans. A true and correct copy of this Proposal by the Government, accompanied by a certified English translation, is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 4. Swedish Study Support Act SFS 1999:1395, Transitional Provisions note 21 , which provides that a claim for repayment of student loans becomes barred 25 years afier it was made, unless the limitation is disrupted prior thereto; and which provides that the 25-year time bar will apply only if the claim has not been barred prior to July l, 201 l. A true and correct copy of this statute, accompanied by a certified English translation, is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. 5. Swedish Code of Statutes [Regulations] SFS 1998:656, Chapter 8, § l, which provides for the amount of administrative fees in the repayment of student loans. A true and correct copy of this regulation, accompanied by a certified English translation, is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. 6. Swedish Code of Statutes [Regulations] SFS 2009:1536, Chapter 6, Note IO, which provides for the amount of administrative fees in the repayment of student loans. A true and correct ccpy of this regulation, accompanied by a certified English translation, is attached 7 REQUEST FORJUDICIAL NOTICE IQ \DOOMJONUI-h-UJ attached hereto as Exhibit “F”. 7. Swedish Code of Statutes [Regulations] SFS 2014:1581, Chapter 6, Note 10, which provides for the amount of administrative fees in the repayment of student loans. A true and correct copy of this regulation, accompanied by a certified English translation, is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”. 8. Judgment of Administrative Court of Appeal in Gfiteborg, Case no. 8242-8244-1 l, October 3, 2012, which provides that a debtor shall be considered to have received demand letters when several such mailings have been sent to the debtor’s [Swedish Population] registered address, and which provides that a student’s study obligation shall be considered to have been made when the entire loan has been disbursed. A true and correct copy of this Judgment, accompanied by a certified English translation, is attached hereto as Exhibit “H”. 9. Decision of Court of Appeal for Skéne and Blekinge, Case no. 0A 2441-07, May 5, 2008, which provides that a debtor shall be considered to have received annual statements and demands when several such mailings have been sent to the debtor at his [Swedish POpulation] registered address. A true and correct copy of this Decision, accompanied by a certified English translation, is attached hereto as Exhibit “I”. Pursuant to the provisions of California Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452(d), Plaintiff Kingdom Of Sweden requests that this Court also take judicial notice of the following: 10. The Memorandum Decision in Kingdom Of Sweden v. Erik Aloisy Nowacki, No. 14-cv- 01259-I-I-NLS, 2015 WL 5165293 (S.D. Cal. August 28, 2015), in which the Court held that Swedish law provides the applicable statute of limitations in student loan collection actions brought in California by the Kingdom of Sweden. A true and correct cepy ofthe Memorandum Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit “J”. 11. The Order re: Defendant’s Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings in Kingdom Of Sweden v. Martin Chn'stian Melius, No. CV 14-04492 RSWL (Ex) (C.D. Cal. November 25, 201 5), in which the Court ruled that Swedish law provides the applicable statute of limitations in 3 REQUEST FORJUDICIAL NOTICE IQ \DOONJONtJI-hw student loan collection actions brought in California by the Kingdom of Sweden. A true and correct copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “K”. Dated: February 5, 2021 LAW QFFICES F ETST MOONEY By: \J t“ K‘: i \W W. ERNEST MOONEY Attorneys for Plaintiff KINGDOM OF SWEDEN 4 REQUEST FORJUDICIAL NOTICE ’ CERT! ACTION Ihfl'byMW flflddchar: underpenalty ofpaiuty lhn I unfamiliar w‘ a I . ' 1m the S .I I' um: Enshflh 131%“389-‘1 Md flit IUHOWing clocmnenis are Hue andcom trans! WM Swedi'sh documents: “on- ofthe A. Swedishsmystnpponmsrsmamo£upmm- m" . andChaptuQQZc g "3’chm 351: Swedish Limimmmm 1931:130. s; 2, 5.,mm prom bymmmmmmm 15%. g 6.4 Swans Sung-sw Au sss 1999:1395,WWm”mmwm [Rumbas] sBs 199mm.mg”, 5 1 smooaorswm [ngumim] 'srs.Massachwafim ,0 Swedish CodecramWm] 31's 201421531355”. 5,Hm m mam«:er Conn of-Appe'alninen‘mg, Case no. 32424244.] 1, cache: 3, 2012 . I. Decision ofCamtofAmulfm'Sth:NM, Can m. OK 2441-07,}!!! 5.m Dated: February 25, 2.020 mefimfim fl _ :snznrupow EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "A" The Study Snpport Act (l973:349) Swedish Statute Book Nth: 1973:349 Department/Government: Ministry ofEducation Issued: 1973-05-25 Reprint: SFS [Swedish Statute Book] 19872303 Modified: Including SFS 2000: 1 37:. Other Text: Update Directory: SFSR (Lagrummct) [Penal for Swedish pubiic legal inf o Source: Government Ofices/Lagnumnet ammo!” Chapter l. Initial Provisions §l: The Government ofiers study SIJppOI't [finflnGial aid] according 10 this act in the f study help, financial aid, short-tcrm study support, 5031‘de grams: 311d SeparateMmmg support. Law (1993:220). §2: Study help consists ofstudent grants, extra supplements, and board and l . . mpplements. Law (1991-480). Mgmg §3: Financial aid consists of student grams and student loans. Law (1991-439). Chapter 8. Repayment of Student Loans General Provisions Anyone who has received a student loan must repay the loan. An annual intcre paid on the loan. ' 8t aha." also be Adminismtive fees shall also be authorized according to regulations communicated Govcnuncnt. by the The repayment of the student loan arid the interest is done by a certain amount ev a] year (an annual amount). The paid amount shall be deducted first fiom theme? :6 endar then fi'om the capital debt. Unpaid interest during the year it has accrued is added toutlherisatpgg: debt at the end of the year. Law (1988.377). C~apter 9. Other Provisions §lc: In connection with the granting of student loans according to this Act, The Swedish 8 d fa Study Support shall be authorized to charge for its administrative fees according to O$ regulations that the Government communicates. Law (1993:220). A 8 2 nwmt/myndighet: Utbndningsdepafiementet Utflrdld: 1973-05-25 0mm: SFS 1937:303 fluhd: t.o.m. SFS 2000:1372 61mg tut: laminar: F R ru met Kiln: Regefingskansliet/ Lagrummet 1 ka . Inled mm r _;_§ Staten lémnar studiestdd enllgt denna lag! form av studiehjalp, studiemedel, korttldsstudlestfid, internatbldrag och sarskilt vuxenstudle- stbd. Lag (1993.220) 25 Studlehjalp bestSr av studlebidrag, extra tillagg och irmckwdedngstlllagg. Lag (1995:480). u smdlemedel bestfir av studiebidrag och studielan. Lag (1 995:480). a nag. Agrbe'amlig“ av's‘uidt'aian h Allmgng gsgmmelggr Lg Den som uppburlt studletsn ska" Sternetala Ianet. P3 lane: ska" ogksfi betalas en 5mg ranta. I 3:"zband med Sterbetalningen far ocksfi tas ut avgifter far administratlva kostnader enllgt fareskrmer som regeringen meddelar. Betalnlngen a3 lfinet och r&ntan sker 5e? ett visst belopp varje kalendersr (53b6, D - ‘ . e ‘ belowet skau avraknas I rbrsta hand p5 den a WP) t Inbetalade upplupna rSntan och darefier p3 kapitalskulden. Ranta sorn inte betalas under z; det ér den h‘ar uppluplt Iaggs ved arets slut uu kapltalskulden. Lag (1983:377). ' I samband med beviljanhe av studielfin enligt denna lag fir Centrala smdlestfidsnamnden ta ut avglfter fér sina administrative kostnader enllgt fareskrifier sorn regedngen meddelar. Lag (1993:220). EXHIBIT "8" I I “B” TltE Limitations Act (1981: 130) Swe4ilh Statute Book No.: 1981:130 Department/Government: Department of Justice L2 r.saed: 1981, January 29 Rejnmt: Modified: Including Swedish Statute Book 2006:698 OtllerText: Update Directory: SFSR (Lagrummet) [Portal for Swedish public legal infonnation} Seuru: Government Offices/Lagrummet Statute of LiJDifatioDI § 2: A claim becomes statute-barred ten years after it was made, unless the limitation is interrupted before that. Dfsrul!don of the statute of limitatioat § 5: The statute of limitations is disrupted in the event ~. the borrower undertakes payment, pays interest or principal or acknowledges the debt in anotber manner to the creditor, 2. the debtor receives a written demand or a written reminder from the creditor regarding the claim . .. Raalt of dlsnptioo of the statute of Umitatiom § 5: lf the statute of limitations bas been disrupted through acknowledgernent, demand or reminder, a new statute of limitations takes effect on the day of disruption according to § 2. a I Preslcriptionslag (1981 :130) SFS nr: 1981:130 Depaf'tement/rnrndlghet: Justltledepartementet L2 lllflrd•ct: 1981·01·29 Omtryd(: Andnd: t.o.m. SFS 2006:698 bvrlt text: Andl"'ne.-.gllter: SFSR Cygrummetl tal'l• : Reger/ngskansllet I Lagrummet PretkriDtionstkJ' - .. - ... z..J En fordran preskrlberas tlo &r efter tlllkomsten, om inte preskriptlonen avbryts dessf~rinnan . ... Preskriptionsavbrott U Preskriptlon avbryts genom att 1. ~alden~n utf8ster betalnlng, ert8gger ranta eller amorterfng eller erkanner fordrlngen ~annat satt gentemot borgenaren, 2. ~alden~ren fir ett skrtftllgt krav eller en skrtftllg erlnran om fordrtngen ftin borgen8ren eller ... Verkan av Dreskriptionsavbrott §.!Om preskriptlon har avbrutlts genom erkAnnande, krav eller erlnran, t~per en ny preskr1ptlonstld enllgt 2 § ftin dagen. for avbrottet. a· I -- - EXHIBIT "C" EX T “C" Froposal by the Government 24)10/11: 113 ]ncreased flexibility and improved repayment within the study support system Proposal 2010/11:113 ---.. ---··---------·----------·-- --------.---- 11te Government presents this proposal to the Parliament. Stockholm the 13th of April 2011 Fredrik Reinfeldt Nyamlco Sabuni (Department of Education) 6.4 Statute of Limitation Period for Financial Aid Claims 6.4.1 General Statements abGat Statute of Limitations [Page 21) The Limitations Act ( 1981: ~ 30) is applicable to all t~s of debts, including public debts, unless otherwise specifically stipulated. According to § ·2s first Paragraph of the Limitations Act, the general rule is that a claim lapses ten y~ars after it is made unless the limitation period is interrupted ~fore ~· In ~ same section, sec~n~ paragraph it is clear, however, that where there ts a clmm agamst a consumer, the lurutation period is three years if the claim relates to a product, service or other need which a business in its professional activity has provided consumers ~y for personal use. The three-year limitation period, however, does not apply to clauns based on promissory notes. According to statements in the legislative history, a claim on repayment of financial aid is subject to the general ten-year statute oflimitations unless specific limitation provisions apply (Prop. 1979/80: 119, p. 92). However, according to Prop. 2010/11: 113, page 22 there are no particular limitation rules regarding the area of study support financial aid. According to practice, the government's claim on repayment of study support financial aid [loans] occurs as a result of disbursement of the study support financial aid in question and becomes statute-barred if not made within ten years of when the claim was made (see judgment from Stockholm Court of Appeals, 2001-12-05, Case No. 1453- 2001). According to § 5 of the Limitations Act, a creditor may interrupt the limitation period partly by the debtor. receiving a wri~en demand or. a written remind~r of the claim, partly by fonnal action bemg brought agamst the debtor m court, at executive official or in c 10 arbitration proceedings, ban.lres.kriptionstiden ska sAledes inte g!llla RSr fordringar dAr det vid tidpunkten omedclbart fllre ikrafttrAdandet inte har vidtagits nlgon preskriptionsavbrytande At- , . c .. Zf 26 gird inom tio Ar fiin den sista utbetalningen av studielAnet. Till skillnad Prop. 2010/11 :1]3 &An utredningen anser regeringen att det inte ltr ntsdvlndigt att ange att den ~rllngda preskriptionstiden, nl.r det gllller studiesttsd 'som bar lllm- . nats enligt den gamla studimodslagen, gllller endast fordringar som bar uppkommit fiire den 1 juli 2011 . c EXHIBIT "D" I “D" The Study Support Act (1999:1395) Swedish Statute Book N9; 1999:1395 Dcpermenthovernment: Ministly odeucation luned: 1999-12-16 Raprht: Modified: until SFS [Swedish Statute Book] 2014:1580 Other Text: Update Directory: SFSR (Lagrummct) [Portal for Swedish public legal information] Source: Government Ofl'lces/Lagummet 21. Any claim rcferring to repaymentof student loans or study support or recovew ofstudy aid mhnitted under the Sandy Support Act (1973349) becognes staunc-Wred twcmyfive years nflu it was made, unless the limitation is disrupted pnor thereto, HowWer,m applies only ifthe claim has not be‘cn‘statute-ban'ed prior to July l, 201 1 . Law (201 1:859). Studiestfidslag (1999:1395) $5M 1999:1395 Depammenflmyndighet: Utbildningsdepartemcntet lJtflrdad: 1999-12-16 Ontryck: Kudma: mm, SFs 2014: 1530 Ovrig text: Kndflnsmgister:W Killa: Regefingskansliet l Lagummet 21 . En fordran 30m avser flerbetalning av studielan enq- studiemedcl ellcr iterkrav av studiestbd 30m ha: lamina euligt studicstddslagcn (1973 :349) presh'iberas tjugofgm 5, eficr tillkomsten, om into preskripfionen avbryts dcssfbrinnan. Dena glller dock endast om fordran ime ha, preskfibcrats fibre den l juli 20! l. Lag (2011:859). U EXHIBIT "E" XHlBl' ' “E” Ulaii!JI Swedish Code of Statutes [Regulations] SFS 1998:656 Published from the printer On June 24, 1998 Ordinance amending (be study support regulations (1973:418) Issued on June 11, 1998 The Government prescribes that Ch. 7, 2 a §, Ch. 8, 1 and 5 § §, Ch. 9 1 § d attachment to the study support regulations ( 1973 :418) including points 1 a, ~d : . ": traruitional provisionS of the regulations (1988: 1381) regarding changes in the .~0 gule . shall have the following wording. 581 re ation ... . Claapter8 1 § Fees for administrative costs shall be charged for the d~d of ~e annual amount (service fee) and upon reminders of overdue annual amo~ts. The semce fee ts. 100 [Swedish) Kronor f4 each annual amount that is charged and the remmder fee of 120 [Swedish] Kronor for each reminder. The fees are payable according to ~e as determined by The Swedish Board for Stud Support. 21 . . . Svensk fiirfattningssamling . SFS 1998:656 Ffimrdning ’ u mandnugismdieswdsmmrdningen (1973:413); dmfifi? 39?“ nflrdad den lljuni 1998. Regcringen {Breskriver an I kap. I a 9“, 3 kapcl och 5 §§. 9 kap. l a § och hulagan till studieuddatbmdningw (19739113) sum punktum l a och 8 i ansbcflflmmelserna till mmrdningcn (1988:1381) om flndring i nlmnda mmtdning shall ha ibijlnd: lydelse. B Imp. l 3’ Avglficr fir administrmva' kosmadcr skull ta: ut fbr dcbitering av Ars- belopp (expeditionsavgifl) och vid ptmimolse om Mina Melon. Bx- peditionsavgifim Hr 100 krona:- fbr vuje inbelopp sum dabitcras och pi- m'mnehuvgifim fir 120 honor tbr vuje plminualsc. Avgificma aka“ beta- las pl lid sum Central: studiestodsnnmndcn bestimmu'. EMBIT “F” Swedish Code of Statutes [Regulations) SFS 2009:15 36 Published from the printer On December 30, 2009 Ordiaaaee amending the study ••pport regalatioas (2080:655) Issued on December 17, 2009 ·n1e Govenunent prescribes with respect to study support regulations (2000:655) partly that Ch 6, 5 § and point 1 in the entry into force and transitional provisions shall have tltc following wording, partly that two new points, I 0 and 11 shall be introduced into the entry into force and transitional provisions according to the following wording. Cla.ti --- · ' .... ~··· - . . -... (Regulatious.for L~ans Takal Betwee1 January 1, 1989 and Jne 30, 2001 (Stadeat LoaJU)) LO. Instead of the stated service fee in Chapter 8, §1 of the study support ordinance (19 73:418), the service fee is to be 120 [Swedish] Kronor for each annual amount that is char and the reminder fee 200 [Swedish] Kronor for each reminder. ge .···F· . Z7 Svensk fdrfattningssamling • ------------- ·------------------~----- FlJrordaing om lndring i studiestlJdsfllrordnineen (1000:655); uttlrdad den 17 december 2009. Regeringen tbreskriver i fdp om studiestOdsftkordningen (2000:65S) dl/J att 6 kap. 5 § oc:h punkt 1 i ikrafttrldalldc· och lh'ersinssbesubnmel- sema sica ba fttljande lydclse, d6Js att det i ilcrafttrldande. och Overpngsbestlmmelsema ska inftku tvl nya punktcr, 10 och 11, av mljande lydelte. 6kap. ........... ~ . I 10. I stlltct RSr det som angcs i 8 kap. 1 f studicsmdsmrordningen (1973:418) ska expeditionsavgiftcn vara 120 kronor ft!r viJje lnbclopp som debiteras och pAminnelseavgiften 200 kronor asr varjc plmlnnelse. .. F 21 .. . . . . . .. . SFS 2009:1536 Utkotn frAu tryckec dea 30 december 2009 --.. .. '• ...... ........ _ .. .. . . . . EXHIBIT "G" I - ·· - - ·. ""' . . ,_,ldiCNieofllatulllr · oa~~~"• G • . . . ... mvmminom mueamufi umammmmm” ."'°‘“‘“1' mmnun [lawn] Insteadofmtumudhmfihr. 1QIMMAHW dueIWMMMMW lidhruduaulmum(19mm). udchemhderfeuhal hemmgorudm. Svenskammunmlhm on.mdmrmamflum amass). “2"“31 munmuu “MLam.WWI mm(fluluuuhflfizhhfifltfi ’- ldaum Md II IMdflhhmm s“; 9h Ie-Imaammll“fi'IM‘"kw”(Imlljmmw. I H l‘. V '- G) EXHIBIT ”H” u Page 1{10) RAMMARRATTEN I IUDGMENT Case no. 8242-8244-11 GOTEBORG 2012-10-03 [October 3, 2012] [Administrative Court Presented in Gateborg oprpeaI In Gfiteborg] Department 2 APPELLANT Susan Karkman, 731029-3969 [Swedish personal identification number] Representation: Attorney Rudolf Laurin Wistrand Advokatbyré Box 11920 404 39 Gfiteborg OPPONENT Centrala Studiestfidsnfimnden [The Swedish Board For Study Support] Main Office 85 I 82 Sundsvall APPEALED RULING Administrative Court in Malmfi's Ruling October 24, 201 1. Cases no. 12844-10. 13840-10 ¢and 13864 1, see enclosure A REGARD!NG Writemff of study loan including annual amount for 2010 and 201 1 regarding study loan. COURT 0F APPEAL DECISION The Court ofAppeal rejects the appeal [by the student borrower] as it relates to write-offof study loan (case no-. 8244-1 1). The Court of Appeal annuls the lower court's decision as it relates to annual amount for 2010 and 2011 and returns the cases back to The Swedish Board For Study Support for reconsideration (case no. 8242-8243411. Doc. Id 224508 Postal address Visiting address Telephone Telefnx office hours Box 153 1 Star: Nygatan 21 +1 [0131-732 74 BO +1 (0}31-732 16 00 Monday-Friday 4D! 50 Gateborg E-mail: kammarratten.gntebarg@dom.se 8:00 am - 4:00 pm m ‘ A ------'eburgse H 31 KAMMARRATTEN I GCITEBORG (Administrative Court of Appeal in G6teborg) DEMANDS Susan Karkman JUDGMENT Page 2 Case no. 8242-8244-11 Susan Karkman demands that the Court of Appeal decide that her study loan shall be written off based as time-barred [statute of limitations) and determines the annual amounts to be zero [Swedish) crowns [SEK]. She refers to the following to support her petition. The claim by Centra Ia StudlestOdsn:tmnden (CSN) [The Swedish Board For Study Support] Is time- barred. CSN has not showed that she has received any of CSN's demands with in a ten-year period. She has demonstrably lived in the United States with permanent status since August 23, 1999 and has been a citizen of that country since February 13, 2006. She has been completely open about 1\vlng in the United States and she has received her mall there. She has therefore never had reason to check if any mail arrived to her at Borringegatan 4 C [Malmo, Sweden} where her mother lived, but where she never physically lived herself. Her name was not on the mailbox and her- mother's name was not Karlcman. She has only had sporadic contacts with her mother, who In addition was very Ill and passed away In 2005. CSN has had full access to information about her address in the United States. She provided when in contact with CSN m January 1996 that all correspondence with her should be sent to the address: ERAU Box 146496, FL 32114-3977, USA. Her latest application for study loans on August 15, 1999, which CSN later denied, shows that she submitted the mentioned address for the purpose of correspondence with CSN. As far as she knows, CSN sent all correspondence to that address during that time. After her studies, she has been a know person and represented her university. When CSN realized the Is suP. of statue of limitations, it would have been easy to find her. She immediately contacted CSN when she received correspondence from the agency in the spring of2010. CSN's position H IZ MMMARRATTEN I GOTEBORG (Administrative Court ~f Appeal In Goteborg) JUDGMENT Page 6 Case no. 8242-8244·11 mailtngs regarding the debt and that he had not lived at his [Swedish Population] registered cddresses. The debtor had five different registered addresses between 1992 and 2009 and for a )leriod of four months lacked a registered address. In the case. it was detennined that 25 mailings had been sent to the debtor at each current [Swedish Population] registered addresses without any Mailing having been returned and that nine of the letters were sent within the initial statue of I mitacions (10 years). The risk that none of these nine mailings had not reached the debtor was found negligible by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court stated that the mailings were sent to the {Swedish Population] registered addresses and that he had reason to check on his mail there, regardless of him living there or not. Even though he did not Jive at the addresses, the court found that a mailing delivered there should be considered to have reached him. JnyesCWat;on In case Susan Karkman studied with study loans for a total of twelve semesters from fall of 1992 to and including spring of 1999. The last disbursement of study loan occurred on April 7, 1999. Between 1994 and 2000, Susan Karkman studied at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) In Daytona Beach, I SA. In the study Joan application signed June 11, 1994, Susan Karkman noted that her country of registered residence was Sweden and that her Swedish address was Borrlngegatan 4 C In Malmo. Under the heading "Foreign address -state the foreign address where you want correspondence sent", she wrote an address on Clyde Morris Blvd in Port Orange, Florida. She stated that the address was valid until and Including August 1998. In a supplement to her study aid application dated June 23, 1994, she stated that she would be In Sweden july 11 to August 15 and that her address during that time was Borringegatan 4 C in Malmo. She applied on July 6, 1995 for H· KAMMARRATTEN I GOTEBORG [Administrative Court of Appeal in Goteborg] JUDGMENT Page7 Case no. 8242·8244-11 continuing study aid for studies abroad. On the application, the American address of Clyde Morris Blvd was preprinted. In an attachment to the application, she submitted a new address in the United States: ERAU, Box 146496 In Florida. She then submitted unchanged address Information In study aid applications In 1997 and 1998. The 1997 study aid application says that the American address Is valid until August 8, 1998. On the form on which Susan Karkman applied for additional study aid on August 15, 1999 is her latest stated American address preprinted. She did not note how long the address would be valid. The estate inventory after Susan Karkman's mother, states that Susan Karkman had a new address in the United States as of )uly 9, 2005: Sapp Road, New Smyrna Beach, Florida.ln the investigation of the case, it shows that Susan Karkman moved from jamestown, North Carolina to Hawick Manor in Pineville, North Carolina In 2008 and that she currently Jives in Charlotte, North Carolina. Susan Karkman has not submitted these addresses to CSN. The Investigation In the case also shows that Susan Karkman was [population] registered as a resident of Sweden and that her address was Borringegatan 4 C in Malmo from Aprilt 5, 1993 - August 13, 2007. Thereafter Susan Karkman was registered without known address until September 16, 2010. From that day she is registered as having emigrated. Susan Karknan's mother lived at Susan Karkman's [population} registered address until her death In June 2005. Susan Karkman received a written demand from CSN in the spring of2010 dated April 23,2010. Court Q{Appeql assessment Question regardfng statute of/imitations Susan Karkman's study debt shall be considered to have been made when the entire Joan had been disbursed, i.e. April 7, 1999. {[Government) proposal 2010/11:113 page 24). 1fno disruption of H KAMMARRATTEN I GOTEBORG [Administrative Court of Appeal in Goteborg) JUDGMENT PageS Case no. 8242-8244-11 the statue of limitation has occurred during the following ten year time-limit, CSN's claim on Susan Karkman shall be considered to have lapsed as of April 8, 2009. CSN has stated that agency during the time period 1993-2007 annually in January sent an annual statement to Susan Karkman at the address Borringegatan 4 C in Malmo where she had her [Swedish Population] registered address In Sweden. None of those mailings were returned. There are no reasons to question this information. During the time period 2001·2007. CSN has sent seven annual statements to Susan Karkman's [population] registered address. The risk that none of these statements have not reached the register address was found negligible by the Court of Appeal. Based on the [Swedish} Supreme Court's decisions It has been established that the debtor has a reason to monitor his/her mail at that address where hejshe is registered. A mailing that has been delivered to the [population] registered address should be regarded as having reached the debtor even though the debtor does not live at the [population] registered address. According to Chapter 8, paragraph 22 of the study support act (1973:349} It follows that the burden is on the obligor to provide CSN with information that Is of consequence for application of the repayment regulations. In addition, according to paragraph 27 of the Population Registration Act (1991 :481) It follows in addition a requirement for those who are registered and intend to move abroad to report this to the Taxing Authority or Social Insurance agency, as well as report the foreign address to one of the these agencies. The investigation in the case found that Susan Karkman did not report to the Swedish agencies in question that she intended to move abroad. She did however report an address in the United States to CSN where she could be contacted during her studies. but after finishing her studies she has not submitted the information CSN, needed by the agency, to contact her in the United State even though she moved at least four times after finishing her studies. Since she kept her {Swedish Population] registered address, the Court of Appeal flnds that with this background It has been Susan Karkman responsibility to monitor her mail at the registered address. H • MMMARMTTEN 1 JUDGMENT Page 9 GOTEBORG [Administrative Court Case no. 8242-8244- 11 ofAppeal in Gfiteborg] Bfirringegatan 4 C in Malm'c'n. The Court of Appeal finds that the annual statements sent to Susan Karkman's registered address should be considered to have reached her. The statue of limitations has therefore been disrupted and Susan Karkman's study loan is therefore not time-barred. Question regarding incorrect procedure and caicuiatfons ofanmm! amountsfor2010 and 201 1 The Administrative Court has on December 7, 2010 in case no. 12844-10 and 1 13840-10 regarding write-off and the annual amount for 2010 suggested that Susan Karkman complete her action. She has thereafter submitted arguments termed completion ofthe action. In the Administrative Court’s case no. 1386-11 regarding annual amount for 201 1, Susan Karkman petitioned that the court hold its decision until the question of the statue of limitations is ruled on. The Administrative Court has not acted on that before the ruling was presented an October 24, 2011. No insufficiency that calls for remitting the case to the Administrative Court has been found. Susan Karkman's petition regarding incorrect procedure therefore prompts no action from the Court oprpeal. Susan Karkman has submitted financial support of her 2008 and 2009 income in the United States to the Appeal Court. These proofs - Record ofAccount from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) o contain information that must be considered important for the calculation of her annUal amounts for 2010 and 201 1. It is primarily CSN that has to consider the consequences of the submitted documents. The Administrative Court's cases no. 8242-11 and 8243-11 shall therefore be returned back to CSN for recalculating the annual amounts for 2010 and 2011. ~MMARRATTEN I GOTEBORG !Administrative Court of Appeal In Goteborg] JUDGMENT HOW TO APPEAL -see enclosure B (form 1) (Signed] Kristina Harmsen Hogendoorn [Signed] Maria Lindvall H (Signed] Page 10 Case no. 8242·8244-11 Magnus Lundberg Referent [Signed] /Matihas Granberg Avdclning 2 ANKOM 20l2 “10‘ 0 B I C§Ngfi fl _ - Sid: 1 (10)mmmn 1 Garment; OM Mm nr 8242-82444! 2812 40- B 3 Meddcladi theborg [G.AGANDE Susan Karlanan, 73102933969 Ombud: Advolcat Rudolf Laurin Wishind Mvokatbyra Box 11920 404 39 Gateborg MOTPART Central: studiestfidsnimndm Huvudkmtaret BS] 82 Sundwall 6mm” AVGORAND'E F&rvalminpinen i Mflmfis dam dan 24 oktobcr 2011 i ma]m 12844-10, 13840-10och 1386-11, se bilaga A ' SAKEN Avah'ivning av studielinmt flrsbelopp fir 2010 o‘ch 201 I av'seénde studielin mimNs AVGGRANDE Kmmmrittm avslir fiverklagandet sévitt avscr avsbiming av studielin (mil n: 8244-1 1). Kmmnalritten upphivcr underinstansernas avgfiranden akin mrsa- mbe- lopp Err 2010 och 2011 och visar mfilen hfiro'm' £th till Cmtnla studie- stédsnimndm fir ny prévning (mi! n: 8242-82434 1). anh- ok-Id -’ S semi?“ m; . ---;..~;:-Wc. I ‘ t .L ' u lu Box 1531 Sb. r!- Nygaa v: 21 u 9 i a 03,432 76 0° Elli“: :nltidg 4m so Goteborg m fired: v mumgotebownmmc 03:00.16:00 .mm.mbmg.‘n ~TTENI OOTEBORG DOM Sida2 Mil nr 8242-8244-11 YRKANDEN M.M. Susan Karkman Susan Karkmm yxtar att lcamm~rien bestimmer att hennes studielln ska avskrivas s4som preskriberat samt f'aitstiller irsbeloppen till noll kr. Hon an tar bl.a. mljande till stOd tOr sin talan. Den fordran som Centrala StudiestOdsoimnden (CSN) hm: lr preskriberad. CSN bar inte viJ~:t att bon bar tagit del av CSN:s krav ~en tiolrsperiod. Hon bar bc'Visligen bott i. USA med ~cot uppebAilstillstlnd sedan den 23 augusti 1999 och hm' haft mcclborgankap i det laadct sedan den 13 feb. ruari 2006. Hon har varit belt (Sppen med att hon bor i USA och bar erhAllit sin post dit. Hon bar aAledes aldrig haft anledning att bevaka om nlgon post eventuellt kommit till benne till Borringegatan 4 C dir heuncs mor bodde, men dlr bon sjilv aldrig fysiskt bar bott. Hames namn fanns intc pA brevll- dan od1 modems namn var inte Karbnan. Hon bar haft endast sporadiska kontakter med sin mor som d~tom var svArt sjuk och avled redan 2005. CSN bar haft full tillglng till uppgifter om bennes adress i USA. Hon upp- gav i lcontakt med CSN i januari 1996 att all korrespondens mcd benne slculle ske till adress ERAU Box 146496, FJ 32114-3977. USA. Av hermes sista ansak~ om studiemedcl den 1 S ·augusti 1999. som CSN sedeanera avslog, framglr att bon ocksl vid detta tillfUlc angav nimnda adrcss for korrespondens med CSN. SAvitt hon kinner till skickade CSN under denna tid samUiga alcrive\ser till denna adress. Hon bar efter sins studier varit en kind person och representant tbr sitt uni- versitet. Nar CSN uppmiiJksammade frlgan om preskription bade det varit enlcelt att lokalisera benne. Hon tog omedelbart kontakt med CSN nir bon mottog en skrivelse ,ftin myndighetcn under vlren 2010. CSN :s uppfattning H ,, ...... a.uan&n.&U,.,...l l£11., J G0TEBORG DOM Sida3 Mll nr 8242-8244-11 att preskriptionsavbrott-skett bara for att !rsbesked bar avsints till folkbok- ioringsadressen i Sverige saknlf r!ttsligt stM. F5rvaltningsritten bar slutHgt avgjort de tva mll som avser faststillande av irSbelopp utan att hon tltt mojJighet att i sak utvcclda sin talan j fiiga om beloppa19 storlck; trots yrkandt-dirom. P6rvaltningsritten har gjort sig skyldig ~n ritteg~pfel. Av utdrag.ur emerilcanska skattevcrkets lrsbesked framgAr att·det hade funnits grund fOr justcring av Arsbeloppcn. CSN CSN anser att 6vedclagandct ska. avsl6s och anfor bl.a. ffiljande. Ett fiertal prcsbiptionsavbrott bar skett geoom att CSN lUlder perioden J 993-2007 i januari varje 6r bar skickat Anbeskcd om skulda)s stmlck till Susan Karlanans folkboktOringsadrcsa i Sverige. Dessa fOrsindelscr bar inte kommit i retur. CSN bar inte saknat nAgra betalningar fr6n Susan Karkman eftersom bon bar taJu:rats fOr sa lAga inkonmer att CSN inte kunnat ta ut nAgot lrabelopp. Det Jean sklijg= krlvas a.v den ensldldc att bon underrittar berorda myndi&}\eter om vUken &dress bon kan nls pA, altemativt att bon genom eftenindning eller liknande ltgird sikerstiller att hon nb av sin post. Susan Karbnan var folkboktord p! ~rringegatan 4 C i Malmo under peri- oden den 15 april 1993-13 augusti 2007. Dar var ocksl hc:nnes mor folk- boktOrd till dess bon avled i j~ 2005. Susan Karkman bar i ett ftertal stu- diemedelsausi>kn.ingar uppgett folkbokf0ringsadrcsser1 som sin adress i Sve- rige. Hon bar ~sA i en-&nSOkan uppgett att bon kBn nb pl den adressen under en period pA sommaren. Den senast kinda uUindska adress som Suaan Karkman Uimnat till CSN ir hennes studieortsadress, ERAU Box 146196, FL 32114 USA. Det irrimligt att Susan Karlanan bott pl studieortsadrmen !angst tram till odt med sin H KAMMARRA11EN 1 OOTEBORG DOM Sida4 Mll nr 8242-8244-11 mastercxamen i maj 2000. Hon har d!refter inte l&mnat n!gra adrcssind- ringar till CSN trots att bon haft andra adresser i USA. Att CSN sJutligen fick. kontakt med Susan Karkman berodde p! att CSN inledde en adressOk- iring., eftersom aktuell adress · saknades. Susan Karkman bar inte styrkt nir bon tlyttade frln studieortsaWseo eller under vilken tid bon bodde pA - rat den 23 apri12010. Kammgrrlittens bed9mnine Fraga om preskrlptlon Susan Karkmans studicslculd ska anses tillkoiilDlCn nir bela det beviljade I !nat bade betalats ut, dvs. den 7 april 1999 (prop. 2010/11 :113 s. 24). Om H ·" KAMMARRA TTEN I OOTEBORG DOM Sida 8 MAl nr 8242-8244-11 inte nlgot preskriptionsavbrott bar skett under den diJpl fOljande tioArsfris- ten ska CSN:s fordran pl Susan Karman dirlor anses preskriberad den 8 april 2009. CSN bar uppgett att nimndeo under perioden 1993-2007 i januari vllje Ar skiclcade irsbesked till Susan~ pl adressen Boningegatan 4 c i Malmo,.dir bon var folkbok:tOOI i S'!erigc. Av dessa ffirsbdelser kom inte nlgon i retur. Anledning att iftlgasitta dessa uppgifter f'Orcligger inte. Un· del' p~od~ 2001-2007 bar CSN skickat sju Arsbesked till Susan K.arlanans folkbok.fOrin~. Riskcn fOr att inte nAgot av dessa Arsbesked skulle ha kommit ftam till folkbokmringsadrcssen fir enligt kammanittens uppfatt- ning anaes fdtlumbar. A v den prax-is som Hopta domstolen etablerat fOljer att gildeniren bar an- ledning att bevaka sin post pl den adresa dir denne ir folkbokflml. En tOr- sllndelac som bar ddats ut pl folkbokf of l.aw § I '\(•, comment h. at pp. 37R-79 ( \971 ); id. at§ 6(2)(g), p. 10); see also s,·uule T(llo'I/IJ Hork<'y Clu/J I. Nttl'l Hockt!_ll /..eugm•. 783 F.2d 1347. IJ55 11. 4 (Yth C'ir. J9B6) (applying Washington Ia w in ahscnct! of 44 .I notice of application of foreign law), Hrww Rimi111 ( f umimrc J Lui. \'. Cmmor Mktg .. Inc., Cl\ ~o. 1.1..1-0J'}Oo-WBS 1SA8). 2015 WL 4530991. ''2 11 I (E.D.Cal. July 27. 2015) (applying California law in absence uf 44 .I notice of application of foreign law). Al trial. both partiec; agreed that California contract law applies to the issues of contract fomtation and interpretation, except if the patties agreed otherwise as to the term:. or the corumct. Comh·al C mnc L/IW.I. ; .u \' .\lmtt. 4~J l' .S 5B5. 5t.IJ, I I 1 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.:!d 622 (1991 1 10 determine whether a comro~ct \Vas formed between CSN and Defendant and the substance of the contract. To be valid under California law. a contract mu~t have ( 1) parties capable of contracting, (2) consent. (3) a lawful object, and 14) a sufficient cause or consideration. Cal. Ci\'.C'Odt.> ; 1550. ~utual consent is maniiested through the process of offer and acceptance. l'ac Ct>rporatt Group Hole/in.~.'· UC ~·. K't>C'k. :nz Cal.App 4th 29-t. I!! I Cai.Rrtdd :Wll. 41 1 (20 14 ). "[A 1 party's intent to contract is judged objectively. by the pany's outward manifestation of consent." Cet/(ln Sinai M!·tl. Or. 1·. Mitl-Wc-u Nm 'l 14i• Ill.\. Co .. ll!! F.Supp.2d ltltn, 1001( (C.D.Cal.2000). "IW)hen a number of writings dovetail so as to show a meeting of the minds for the accompli~hment of the same object, the contract is as well established as though it had been signed on one writing by all parties and executed with conventional formalities." Tw;,1;11'1 v. nwmpnm. 68 Cai.App 2d 104. 156 P.2d 29, 33 (Cal.l945). *3 Based on the evidence before the Court, Pluintiff and Defendant fonned a contract Both part.tes were capable nf entering into a student loan agreement· Plaintiff is a foreign state and D.::femlant took undergraduate and MBA courses at National University and studied law at California Western School or Law. (Exs.l-12.) The docket within thi~ case reflecLc; that Defendant is a member of the California bar. (E.g., Doc. No 3 at 1 (listing Defendant':. state bar number).) Defendant agreed to repay a student loan with interest in accordance with the Swedish Repayment Regulations if Plaintiff gave him a student loan. For example, on January 4, 1990, Defendant signed a document entitled "Obligation" in which hi! requested a loandtsbursement of 45,197 SEK and "pledge[ d) to repay the loan according to the current repayment rules which 1 have reviewed " (Ell. 1 &.) Defendant s1gned additional obltgations for later disbursements. (E)I;s.l9- 25.) s~e ( rdcrr.l Si1rw 118 F Supp.:!u :11 1008 (objective standard for detennining ~:onsem) Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer by disbursing the funds, which Defendant accepted. (Exs. IB-26.) St~ 7•HIIIII.I/. 156 P.2d a1 :n Ca number of writings can constitute smgle contract): Cocligcm \ Am. J'n1.11 Co .. 131 Cai.App.2d 71(0. 7!1, •. 281 P.2d J:\2 11955) (different writings can form one contract when part of one transact~on). The exchange of money and Defendant's p1omise to repay h1s loans with mterest established sufhctent cons1derauon. lcnforcing reasonable forum selt:ction clause pursuant to Fmally. the object of the agreement was not unlawful or contr:~cl). Therefore. the Court applies California contract law VOIU as against public pol;cy. Cf. Vierm ••. l\mkcn' Conm. · J ,1f'f't't~/~ Bel., 154 Cal o\pp 4th 11 12. 1141!. 65 C.ti.Rptr.jd 56 .(j· Sweden 1!. r.owacki, Slip Copy {2015) 42312007) C'aliforn1J C1\'il Code:~ 1646 provides that "lal coJ\uacl is to be in1crpre1ed according to the law and usage of the place where it is to be perfonned; or, if it does not ind1cate a pi~l7. 111 *I 0 (S.D.C'ai.July H. : ·JI.t); Firt' IIICIIt's lund /ln. Cr1 v. Nalil>mHtlt! Mutuuf 1-irt !11.\-. Cu., :"\u. 11-n-11+-IEG !DHB). 20l2 WL IIJ!<5316 (S.D. Cal. June 4. 20 12). Coum uphold agreements to enforce spedlic comract clau~es that vary from the forum state's law. For example, courts uphold agreements with forum selection da11se~. C(lrnm;f Cruise LmeJ·, file. 1·. Shut«'. 499 L S. 585, 5'1~. II I S.Cl. 15.!2. ll.l L.Ed.::!d 622 ( ll)l) I I, cho1ce of law clatJses, ,Vxu)'dt ~. Bumc•1 & No/rlt' !lw., 763 F 3d 117 I. 1 175 {'Jth Cir.2014), liquidated damages provisions, Wd1~r. Lipllllr: ,~ Co. \'. Chn.Hhm, 52 Cal AppAth 645, 657. 60 C;~l Rrtr.2tl 677 t 1997) (citing Cal. Civil Code § 167 I); Rml£.f.,UII Hl•tl'l.\ 1111'1 /1". v. Mcrjt'stic '/(111'.-rs, /11c .. 488 F.Supp.2d 9:J.l. 95~ ((.' D C.tl.2007), :ubitration clauses, AT & '{'M:Jbilir~· UC ,. CaJICt'J•don, 563 U.S. 333, 131 S Ct I 740, 175.\. 179 LEd.:?d 7.12 (21111!, and other terms specific to the parties' agreement. Here, the parties made the agreement in Sweden. C:tl. Civ.Code § 1646. Plaintiff agreed to loan mor.ey to Defendant to study abroad. In return, Defcnd.unt agreed to repay in accortlnncc: with the Swedish Repayment ReJ:,'IIIationr.. (E.g .. Ell.. 18.) Under tht: circumstances of this case. a student loan agreement between a foreign citizen and his government that is created in the foreign state and contains a promise to repay in accordance with clear contractual tc:mls docs not ,·iolate public policy. See also R~statemcnt (St:~onl.IJ of Contlil't of Law~ § II!IH I) ()9711 (noting that, in the absence of an effecllve agreement, the parties' rights and duties art! generally determim:d by the law of the state 1hat "ha~ the most sigmficJnl rdationship to the wmsacuon and the part1es") (See a/.m, q~ .. Ex. 46 (demand for Joan r. (j) rhe defendant'$ breach. and (4) resultmg dllmagc to the o!aint1ff ,\1/mumoth /al..c•' /.a11d ..\ntlli~itrcm. U .C v Tcm11 c•f :~(lltlllwlh Ulkt:l , Ill I Cai.AppAlh -B!'i, 463. 120 Cal Rptr 3d 797(2010 1; Jordcm 1. Purcf Fin .. ll.C. 644 F Supp.2c.l II Sli. Cui. App.2d 286. 290, 7M Cai.Rptr. 6 C 196Q)) l11e language of the contr11ct governs a coun's interpretation of the parties' obligations when the language is clear and explicit. \'mu Cm . l11c. I' U11itt:cl Srult'.\ Fil'l· hi\ Co., 7H Cai.App 4th 52. 5H. \12 Cai.Rptr.2d 597 ( 2000) (citing Gcu Swr lndcm. Co ~ Supaior Cn.u·1, 47 Cal App.4:h 15Rti, 1~92. 55 C'al Rptr ~d .\21 ! 199D)) Here, the parti~s formed a contract and Plaintiff performed on 1he contract by disbursing loans m the amount of 636,148 SEK to Defc::ndant. (Exs.18- 26.) Nell.t, the Court evaluates wh:ther Defendant breached the contract. Based on the evidence presented 10 the Court, Defendant breached his conlract With Plaintiff. The Court heard testimony that, under Swedish Jaw, student loan borrowers' annual obligations depend on their residency and income. (Testimony of Helena Fallmnn. Testimony of Ake Svensson.) The Court also htard testimony that Swc:dish citizens are required by law to update their pennanent addresses in the national Population Register when thetr addresses change. (Testimony of Helena Fallman.) A student loan borrower who lives in Sweden is required to put four percent of his aMual income toward his student loan debts. (Tec;timony of Helena Fallman; Testimony of Ake Svensson.) A !>tudent loan borrower who lives abroad, by contrast, is required to pay five percent of his total student loiUl debt each year or apply for payments based on income or a harc.lsh1p waiver. (/d.) These repayment obligations can be waived if certain hardship requirements are met. (I d.} As pan of his student Joan contract, Defendant promised to repay his loans according to the Repayment Regulation.~ and also promiseu "to immediately provide CSN, foreign department. with any changes in the study conditions, change of educalional institution or other income conditions." (Ell. I 8.) The Court heard testimony that moving abroad would be a relevant change in income conditions (Testimony of Helena Fallman.) But Defendant fa1led to updat~ hi~ addr~s in the Population Reg1ster or dtsclose any income earned m the U.S. during the relevant time period. For ex.ample. Defendant reported 402 SEK m income for 1993, resulting in a repayment obligation of 0 SEK in 1995. (Ex.. 27.) Similarly. Defendant reponed 12 SEK n income: for 1994, 13 SEK in income for 1995, and 0 SEK m income: for 1996, resulting m repayment obhgations of 0 SEK between 1996 and 1991! (E!I.s 28- 30) Because of Defendant's non.compliance wi1h the contract, Defendan1 had the benefit of not having to make payment~ on his student loan at .m earlier time. Plain:iff therefore did not require Deiendant to make payments on I nl>- 67 (r-.: D.C residence or mcome : onditions. (Ex 18; Testimony of Helena Fallman.) Plainuff provides loans for Its student"> to study abroad, but fa~:es a risk that student<; who ch~ose to r~main abroad aft~:r (.ompleting their studies will fall to repay their loans. (Testimon) of Ake Svensson) Defendant acknowledged his debt but failed to repay (E.lls.47-51.) In sum, Defendant breiiChed the terms of the student loan agreement. c. Plaintiff's Claim Is Not Time-Barred 1. Swedish Law Provides the Applicable Statute of Limitations The panies dispute whether Swedish or California law governs the statut~ of limitations in this a_ction. Under Caltiomia Jaw, Plaintiffs claims would be subJeCt to a four- ye:~r hmttations period from the date of defau~t .ca~.Code Civ. p ~ ~37(1) (imposing four·year statute of hmnauons to enforce a written ~:ontract) Swedish Jaw imposes a longer statute of 1 imitations to recover student loan debts, depending on the sto.tus of the loan on July I. 201\. Preskriptionslag ISf.SJ tl.imitations Act] \981 :13 § 2 (Swed.): StuidestBdsla.g !SFS} )Study Suppon Act)l999: 1395 § 12 (Swed.). determine which state's interest would be more impaired 1f 1ts policy were ~;ubordinated to the policy of the other state' and then ultimately applly}·the law of the state whose interest \\Ould be more impaired if its law were not applied.' " .\tr( c.mr. Ill) Cai.Rplr.3d ]78. 2:!5 P .3d a\ 5:!7 (citations omitted). The ioreign law proponent bears the hurden of ;howing that the foreign jurisdiction's inten:sts in applymg its law are greater than those of the forum jurisdiction. See Karmm Dulflt'l, :!014 WL 3340917, at *II. lo find a "true conflict" between foreign and dome!:tic law, a court must detennine that "application of a foreign decisional rule will .. significantly advance the interests of the foreign state." Stm.1sb~rg 1'. Nc' · Cll!;lcmd tvlul. Uji' Ills. Co .. ~iS F 2d \:!62. I !6~ t~th Cir.I97H). "Only if each of the: states involved has a 'legitimate but conflicting imerest in applying its own law· will we be confronted with a 'true' conflicts c11se." VDshrJrc Rcllllll Co. ' '· Com'/ Oil Co .. 22 Ca\.3d !57, 141\ Cai.Rptr. 1\(,7. !'10 P.2d 721.715 (Cai.I97Ml (citations omitted). A court is less likely to find a true conflict when there are no defendants from the foreign state and the foreign state is not the forum. Am. Ha11k of Cummt'rt't: 1'. Conmticmi, 16'J Cal. \pp.3d 368. 371-73. Z 15 Cai.Rpu·. 331 (Jt.JMS ). But these factors alone are not dispositive. See t\tllmulrtlllllll£'clt l.ee. 202 F.3ll 1:!27, 1237 (9th Cir.200U). •6 The third prong of the governmental interest test requires A federal court sitting in diversity applies the choice of law rules of the forum state. See Muz:." •·. Ar11. Homier Mowr Co .. 666 F.3d 581, S!N (9th Cir.2012l; Bridge Frmc/C(Wilul Corp. 1·• J-cn1/Juch Frtmclrist' Corp .. 622 F.Jd YIJ6. 1002 (l}th Cir.20 1 ()). In California, the governmental interest test is the relevant choice of law rule to determine the applicable smtute of hnutations . .'t4l'Cmm 1'. Fn.Her Whr!t!ler, LLC. 41! Cal.-1th uS. 105 Cal Rptr Jd 37H, 225 P 3d 516.527 (Ca1.20H)); IVC/l'ft. Mn. BemA. 1. Sttperirw Courr. 24 Cal.-lth (}06. 103 Cai.Rptr.2d 320. 15 P.3d 1071. 1077 (Cnl.2001 ). The go\'emmental interest test requires a court (1) to determine "whether the rdevant \:1w of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard to the panicular issue in question is the same or different"; (2) "if there is a dificrence, Ito] exaltlinel 1 each jurbdiction's interest in the application of its ow~ law under the circumstunces uf the particular case to detennme whether a true conflict exists''; and (3) if there is a true conflict. to '\;acefully evaluatcl J and compare{ )the natun.: and strength of ~ach jurisdiction in the application of its own law 'to a court to condll(;t a comparative impairment analysis. In conducting this analysis, a court '"does not 'weigh' the conflicting governmental interests in the sense of determining which conflicting law manifested the "better' or the 'worthier' social polic:y on the spectfic issue." McC'u1111, 105 C:t!.Rplr.3d 37K. 225 P.3d at 533 (citations omitted). Instead, a court determine.~ "which jurisdiction should be allocated the predominating lawmaking power under the circumstance.o; of the present case" ld at 534 ln other words, a court Will apply the "law of the state whose interest would be the more imputr~:d if liS law were not applied." r: ettmry ,. S11lwmm S~~tillr 8Lm1e\. /tu. :w Cnl 4th 95, -IS Ca!.Rptr .3d 730. 137 P.3d (}14. 91:! (Cal 20U6) (citations omitted). Generally, a JUri!;diction wt!l have a greater Interest in regulating conduct that occurred within its borders. McCan11. \05 Cai.Rptr.Jd 378, 225 P.3d at 534; Reidt~·. Purcell. 532 P.2d 727, 729 (Ca!.l967). For e:o~.ample. a state in which a contract was executed will have ··an interest in ~eeing that [it) is enforced according to the law where 11 was made." Roilt'rl ~lcMrrtlcm t~ So11,111r. I' l·ul & Guar Co., 103Ctl App.Jd 198.205, 162 Cal.Rptr. no ( 19SO). Where a statute of limitations IS at issue, the "governmental interest approach generally leads (the J. "· '• .. · . . . ·y Sweden v. Nu\·Jacki, Slip Copy (2015) forum) to apply Lits own] h1w," particularly when the forum's statute of limitations is shorter thiUl the foreign jurisdiction's statute of limitations. Karow•. 2014 WL 3340917, at *II (citing Deu1.1d: 1•. fwm-r Corf'·· .n~ F.3d G92 (9th C1r 2003 )). California chmcc of law rules apply to this action because the: C I)Un is sittmg ir dJverSII) Ma:za. 666 F 3d at 5K9; JJriJgc Funtl Ct~ptlul. 6!2 FJd at 1002. In California, the governmental mterest test determines which statute of limitation~ applies. Mt Cun11. 105 Cai.Rptdd 378, 225 P.:>t.l at 527. 1l1e first prong of the governmental interest test requires a court to determine ~whether the rele\'anl law of ~ach of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard to the particular issue in question is the same or dtfferen\." ld (~:itations omitted). Here. there is no dsspute that California and Swedish law differ on the applicable statute of limitations: C111ifornia law impose.c; a four-year statute of limitations to enforce a written conuact, Cai.Code Civ. P ~ 117( I 1 while Swtdish law imposes a longer statute of Jimitauons to enforce a student loan debt. SFS 1981:13 § 2. SFS 1999·1395 § 12. Th~ next question is whether both jurisdictioru; have a legitimate interest in the application of their own laws such that a true confhct exil>ts Md'mm. I OS Cai.Rptr 3d 17H, 215 I' id at 527. On the one hand, California has a st•ong interest in applytng its four-year statute of limitations to protect a resident from being subject to stale claims ratsed by an out· of-~tate pany See Am. Hunk of Cmmtwn·t~ 1•. Conmclcmi. 16lJ Cai.App.:ld 36H. 37:!. 215 Cal.Rptr. 331 ( 191l5); see also N.lw11 r 1t111 Pu1111 Cn .. 71n E~d 640, (1-lS (9th Cir.I~K3) On the other hand, Sweden hns a strong interest in having its ~tntute of limitations apply to student loan collection actions. When Sweden makes loans to its cttizens who study abroad, it runs a risk that it will have difficulty locating the: borrowers and collecting repayments. (Testimony of Boel Magnus~on; Testimony of Ake Svensson .) The statute of lfmttations ensures that Sweden will have enough time to l!nforcc stud&..-ntloan obligations and helps ensure that Sweden ~:an continue to provide financial support for study abroad programs. (Testimony of Hell!na Fall man: Testimony of Ake Svensson.) Bolh Sweden and California have a legitimate interest m the application of their own laws Therefore, a true connie: exists. Su l\'o'£tm ... ' 45 Cai.Rpu·J d 7311, 1 J7 P .. 1d at 4P "7 The fi nal prong of the governmental interest test requires thl! Cnurt 10 .:omparc: each jurisdiction's interest in its law and determine " whtch ~tate's interest would be more .. ... impaired if its pohcy were subordinated to the policy of the other state." McCwm I 05 Cal Rptr.3tl 378, 225 PJd at 527. Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that Sweden's interests in applying its statute of limuations are greater than California's interests tn applying its own law. Kur01111 Dairie.~. 2014 WL 33409!7, at *II. Here. Sweden has :1 mung interest in applying its statute of limitations The statute of limitations allows sufficient lime for Sweden to identify student loan debtors living abroad and collect on their debts. thereby ensuring that Sweden's student loan program can continue to make student loans to indivsduals studying abroad. (Testimony of Ake Svensson.) Plaintiffs witnesses provided testimony that highlighted Sweden's interest in its statute of limitations. For cxampl~. Boel Magnusson testified that Sweden ha~ been makmg student loans since 1919, that CSN has II offices, all of which are located in Sweden. and that CSN has outstanding student loans totaling 205 billion SEK. (Testimony of Boel Magnusson.) Magnusson also testified that CSN made approximately 15,100,000 SEK in student loans last year. (Testimony of Boel Magnusson.) Moreover. she stated that approximately I 0,100 individuals living in the U.S. have outstanding loans from CSN and that approximately 3,700 of these individuals are in default. (Testimony of Boel Magnusson.) Ake Svensson, chief legal officer for CSN. con finned Magnusson's testimony (Testimony of Ake Svensson 1 If the Coun applied Californta's four-year statute of limitations. Sweden's interests would be significantly impnired. California would not suffer a similarly significant Impairment of its interests if Swedish law applied. Defendl!nt entered into a debt obligation wtth Plaintiff in Sweden Plaintiff has eleven offices, none of which are located outside of Sweden. The loan documents are m Sw~dish. Apan from Defendant's imended place of study, the parties had no tie to Ct~lifornia at the time the contract was made. Swc:dens sizable interests in having its statute of limitation~ apply outweighs California's limited interest in thi~ cuse. Therefore. the Coun finds Swedish statute of limitations applies under a governmcntul interest anaJysis WcCmm. 105 Cal.Rptr 3d 3n. 225 P .. ld at 527. 2. P1aintifrs Claims Are Not Barred By the Statute or Limitations The parties next dispute l11e Swedtsh hmitauons period Under Federal Rule of (I\ 11 PoCK:. -l~N {3d Clr.l9991 (citations omitted). The ten year statute of limitations was therefore tolled or "disrupted· from 1996 through 2014. SFS 1981:13 § 5. Plaintiff made its last disbursement to Defendant on August 4, 1994, and Plaintiff sem reminders each year to Defendant. (1cstimony of Boel Magnusson; Ex.. 25; Ex. 26.) Plaintirrs claim was not time-barred a~ of July I. 2011, when the Stud:- Support Act changed the relevant statute of limitations to twenty-five years, SFS \999:1395 § 12, and Plaintiffs chum is not time·barred. •8 Unuer the Swedish Limitations Act, a student loan collection action that expired before July 1, 2011 became "statute-barred ten years after it was made. unless the D. Common Count<; for Money Lent and Money Had and Received limitations 1s interrupted before that." 1 SFS 1981 13 § 2. The statute of limitations becomes disrupted rn the event that "the borrower undertakes payment, pays mterest or principal or acknowledges the debt in another manner to the creditor" or "re~t\es a writt~n demand or a written remmder from the creditor regarding the claim " Jd. 9 5. "If the statute of hm1tations has hccn disrupted through acknowledgment. uemand, ur remimit.:r, a new statute of limitations takes effect on the day of the disruption according to § 2." /d. § 6. ln 2011. the Swedish Study Support Act extended the statute of 11mitations for student Joan collection actions that wen: not time· barred as of July I. 1011. to twenty-five yc:ars 3 SFS 1999: 1395 § 12. Defendant first argue!; that his debt is a consumer debt subject to a three· year Matute of limitations under Swedish law The Court was not pc:rsuaded by Defendant's Rule 44.1 wiiJ\c:ss, nor did Defendant provtde suffictent advnnce notice or the foreign law. The Court found credtble Phuntiffs Rule 44.1 rchunal witness. (Tt:stimony of Ake Svensson.) He credibly testified that student loans arc not subjec.:t to a three·year statute of Jim1tauons under Swed1sh law. As a resull, Plaintiff has ~stablished that student Juan debts are not consumer debts sub;ect to a three year statute of linutauons under Swedish Jaw The parties next dispute whether Plaintiffs claim is time· bamd under the relevant Swedish Jaw. But the Swedish LimitatulOs Art provide~ that a ~tatutc of limitations is tolled 1r the borrower "receives a .. written reminder from the creditor regarding the claim " SfS 1981 I 3 § 5 Here, the ~v 1dem:c shows that Dctcndant recetvcd annual statements irom CS:'IJ that reminded him of his obligations between 1996 to 2014. tExs. :!7-44; Testimony of Helena Fallman.) . .. .. Common counts are "based on express or implied promilies to pay money." Moya \' Nur1hrup. I 0 Cal..\pp. 3d 276. 281, 88 Cai.Rptr 7~3 < 1\}7()), and are "proper whenever the plaintiff claims a sum of money due.'' Kmmslw l11t'l. USA\', J.cd:t'\l'tmd P1ptt Sm· .. 152 Cal.App .. \d 7MS. 79J. 201 Cal.Rptr. 640 li91Ul A common count action' is governed by principles of c:quity ." Muim v Cll'' Tult• ltLI. Cn .. 105 Cni.App.2d HI. :!32 P 2d 873. 876 IC:.~I.1949) The: only essential allegations of a common count are ''(I) the statement or indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work dune:. etc., and (3) nonpayment .'' Furmen /tu. E.w/1. v. 7..t•rifl, 53 Cal. \pp .. ~th ~5. 460 61 Cai.Rptr.::!d 707 r llJ97 l (citations omitted). To t:litablish a common count for money lent, a plaintiff must show that it loaned the defendant money and that the defendant has not repaid the loan. See Jmws 1'. R. - Mine Uil Co .. 47 Cul..\p~.2d K31, 119 P.1d :!19 I 19~1 1. To establish a cla1m for money had and received. a plaintiff must show that the defendant '·is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum 'for money had and received by the defendant for the usc:: of the plaintiff.'" /·unnas IIU. £.\ell .. 53 Cai.App -lth at 460. 61 Cni.Rptr.2d 707 (citations omitted) •9 Plaintiff has establi~hed that 11 lent Defendant 636,\48 SEK and thut Defendant halo only repaid 645 SEK (E.g .. Exs 18-25: Ex. 26 ) Plaintiff has also established that it provided studc:nt loans to Defendant in consideration of Defendants promise "lo rc:pay the loan nccordmg to the current repayment rules which I have rev1ewcd." CE" 18.) Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a common count for money lent11nd for money had and received. Fanm•r.\ 1111. £rc/r, )J Cai.App 4th ot 160. 61 Cai.Rptr 2u 707. Plaintiff has established that Defendant has a rcmaimng principal balance of 635,503 SEK. In additiou. Plaintiff hils established that it is elllilled to interest and administrative fees pursuam to the terms of the contract. (Exs.JJ- 17.) Defendant offered to rep~y h1s loans according to the J •• Sweden v. Nowacki, Slip Copy (2015) t~m1s oi the Swedish Rtpayment Regulations (EJ\5.\8- 25. ) Plaintiff accepted h1s offu by dtsbursmg funds. Courts r.:guiarly enfo·ce private agreements that contain choice-of- law provt~ions. See. e.g .• A'}{IIWI 763 F.Jd :11 1175. The Regu ations therdore fanned part of the contract. and the . . .; Court w1ll enforce the contract accordtng to us terms. ~ell I' (.!I~ 71\ C Jl , \pp 4th 1\ 58. ():!. Cell H.p.r :!.J 5')7 (court~ enfo·ce contractual terms that are clear) Including unpaid mterest and administrative fees, Defendant c.urrently owes Plaintiff 1,505,196 SEK. ~ (Exs. 13- 17: E11s 18-25: Ell. 26; Te-;trmony of Boel Magnusson.} 111. Defenses A. 'fhe Revenue Rule Does Not Apply The common law revenue rule "prevents a foreign jurisdiction from either in.~tituting a suit to recover taxes, or bnnging a suil to enforce its own court's judgment for taxes." Hl'r M11ji!JI,1' 1 11 ~ {! •~t'C'IJ 111 Rrg/J1 Of rlu: Pmvuu t! nj Brithh Cn/umbiu , .. (ir/batsmr. 597 l·1d Iilli, 1161 n I l'>th Cirl\179); see ulw Pu.llfiiWIIirw 1 Umtr•d \'laiC!\. S.W US J49, 352. 125 ~.Ct 1766. 161 L.bd 2d 61lJ ('2005} ("At common law, the revenue rule generally barred courts from enforcing the tax laws of fore1gn sovl!reigns "), lJonco Nadmwl tie Culm , .. Su/lfJIIIIIIII, .Hn U S. 39R. 44!t t!4 S.CL IJ23. II I..F.d.2d 804 £1 'Jti4J (White. J • dissenting): Uuir~cl .~ltlle 1 v. Tmpilo. IJO revenue rule gentrally baned courts from enforcing the tax laws of foreign sovereigns.") (emphasi!O added); Milwuukn (.'(1/lllt)' 1 M.£. Wllitl' Co., 2% U.S. :!tiS. 272. 5Cl S.Ct. :!}9. KO L.Ed 220 (1935) (foreign tax judgment "goes not to JUnsdiction. but to the: merits"); Sahhmim>, 376 U.S a\ 411- I-I r·a court need not gtve effect to the penal or re' enue laws of foreign countries") (emphasi!> addl!rl). l"rtrf)flll 130 r Jd :tt 550 (courts v.ill "nurma/ly not enforce foreign tU'-JUdgmenLS") (emphasis added); cumpt:an Cmty. \ , R.lfl. Nubisca. Inc.. 150 F.Supp.:!.d 456. 476 (E.D.~. Y.::ilOI J (concluding that "lt!hc revenue rule is discretionary rather than jurisdictional"}, va,·aced and remanded on other grouncls by £umpew1 Cmry. \'. R.IR Naln.(co. 54~ U.S. 1012. 125 S.Ct. 1968. 161 L.Ed.2d S45 (200Sl; ReMa,L:Olc:nt tTI1ird) ul F·lre1gn Rdutinn~ Law ~ 4K~ ( IIJK7) (courts "are not required to recognt7.e or enforct:" foreign tu judgments) (emphas1$ added}. Courts apply the revenue rule in cases that implicate a foreign state's sovereignty or raise separation of powers concerns. Eumpecm Cm1,1 . '· RJR Nu/Jisro, Inc .. 4::!4 F.Jd 175. 180 12d Cir.2005). Where a case "creates littte risk of causing international friction through judicial evaluation of the policies of foreign sovereigns," the revenue rule becomes less relevant. PtJ(qutullino. 544 US. ut 3(11J. t- 1o "47. 550 (2d Cir.19<)7), ccrt dtmied, 525 U.S. 812 (1998) ("courts will nurmally not enforce forctgn tax. judgments"}. Courts gen~rally decline to hear ca.~es that would require thc:m to ~ass directly or indirectly on the validity of a foreign state's tax laws, as such cases "involve( I the relations between the stati!S themselvl!s" and may commit the government "to a position which would seriously embarra~s its neighbor" Moore 1 Mitclle/1, 30 F.3d 600,604 (2d Cir.l929} (L.Hand. J.. cuncurringl. offd 011 other grounds, 2K l U.S. Ill. SO S.Ct. 175 7-11 h l. (,7,1 1 l(l]()); see al.w Pasqttulllino. 5.!4 U.S. ;II i(l8 tooting the "principal evil against which the revenue rule was trndiuonaiJy thought tO guard: judicial evllUation Of the pohcy-laden enactment~ of other ~overeigns"); lmpilu. 1.'0 1-.~d at 5'0 (justifying revenue rule on grounds that "issues of foreign relations are assigned to, and bettered handled by. the tegtslauve and executive branches of the government"). Defendant argues that Platnliff may not use th~ United Statec; fed~ral courts to collect a student loan under the revenue rule. The Court disagrees. The revenue rule does not prohtbit a ioreign sovereign from bringing a claim for loan repayment. See, e.g., Metal Indus. (Salvage) Lrd. v Owners of the S. T. Harle, ll%2} Scots L.T. 114 (Outc:r House) (permitting government to sue for loan repayment); Governmelll of the lslumic Republic of Iran \'. Barakat Gallaies l.Jd., [2007l EWCA Civ. 1374.1 136 (Eng. & Wales) (enforcing Iranian property Jaw because "when a state owns property in the same way as a pnvate citi:.::en there is no impcdtment to recovery''); Unired SttJteJ \', lvey, 139 D L.R. 4th 570, 574 (Ont.C A 1996} (enforcing judgment in favor of United States fur cleanup costs under the ComprehensiVe Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) because 11 was "so close to a common law claim fur nuisunce that it IS, in substance, of a commercial or private law character'') Foreign ta:t laws. like foreign penal laws, "embody the political and social judgments of the sovereign and its people." Eumptllll C,un· I'. RJR Na/Ji:;m, lnt'. . 355 F Jd 12:\, 131 I :!d C1r lC04t. \'llmted und remanded rm olller Kmcmdr b)• l:.uror~< 1UJ Cmty. L. RJR Nuhi.,rv. 544 U.S. I 012. 125 S.Ct ,%8. 161 L.L:U.2d X4~ (2005). A state's tnterest in the repayment of student loan debt is not akin to a collection of a true Defendant rec:!ivcd a loan from Plaintilf to study •to Ddcndant argues that the Court lacks subject matter Juri~diction under the revenue rule. But he has cited no case law staung that the: revenue rule is jurisdictional. Instead, most courtS tre.n the revenue rule as discretionary. See. 11 g. J',Hqwwtow. 544 l! .S. at .152 ("At common law, the .. (;:. J . sw~den v. ;.;,:,::-r:ki, Slip Co~y Z..:015) abr~1d only because he promised to repay the money in acc;;rdance with lh~ terms of the contract. The terms of the comJct require repayment under the Swedish Repaym=nt RegJintion!t. Based on the credible e\·idence at trial, the stucmt loan is not n gratuitous public benefit conferred by the 5wedish go.,.ernment, nor is it an e7\ercise of Sweden's sov:reign uuthority !C' !a7\ and regulate. :'.::<::~rdingly, th~ revtJue rule does not bar enforcement of the student loaa deb:. •11 Defendant finally argues that the Court should decline to t~ercise jurisdiction because of comity concerns. But the comity concerns that underlie the n:venuc rule are "not serinusly offered when lhe foreign government sues in its own nall'.e to enforce a contract to which it is a party despite lhe possibility that the forum government will not recognize lhe claim for reasons of publk policy." Recent Case. Contlict tlf l.aws-JuJgmenb· -Canadian Court Will Not En~rUin Suit to Enforce United Stales Ta;w; Judgment, 77 Han·. L.Re\'. 1327. 13:!8 ( J%4).lndeed, one court has not~d that a contrary int!!rpretation of the rule would have "elltremely troubling" l'omequences because it would "provide strong disincentives for foreign snvcrcigns to dn business with United States corporations" without "serv[ing] the separation of powers or tmraterritoriality concerns that currently motivate federal couns to recognize the revenue rule." Diageo, 531 F.Supp.2d at J86. If the revenue rule barred Plaintifrs claims, it would provide a strong disincentive for Swed~n to continue providing loans for its students to study abroad in the United States. (Testimony of Akc Svensson.) The revenue rule neither cr~atcs a JUrisdictional bar nor rais~:S prudential concerns undt:r the circumstances of this case. B. Federal and State Consumer Protection Laws Do Not Bar Collection Defendant argues that Plaintiff tailed to comply with federal and state d1sclusure requirements under the federal Truth in Lendmg Act ("TILA ') and the California Finance Lenders Law (''CFL"), making his student loan agreement void and unenforceable But DefendanL agreed to a contractual term that required h1m to repay the loan m accordance with the Swedish Repayml!nt Regulations (Ex 18.) Von\ Cn1 .. 7.: C ai.App ~th :11 .liH. 92 Cal Rpu .2d 597 (couns enforce ~.vn·ractual rerrru. that are clear). see als" f ·I! Cil Cnde ~ JM6 The R~payme-nt Rule~ and the testimony given at trial indicate that thc:rc arc: no applicable dtsclosurc: requirements. ('lc:St1mon)' of Ake Svensson.) Plaintiff ho~s not violated any appli1..able consumer protection Jay,~ In the alternate, neither TILA nor the CFL \Oid the Joan agreemc:nt by their own terms. Plaintiff disbursed money to Dc!feodant between 1990 and 1994. At that time. TlLA dtd not apply to ~tudent loans. From 1990 through 1994, section 1603(3) provided an exemption for· Credit transactions. other than tho~e tn whtch a security interl!st is or w1ll be acquired m real property. or in personal property used or expected to be used as the principal dwelling of the consumer, in which the total amount financed exceeds S25.000. 15 U.S.C. § 1603(3) (effective 1982through 1996). It wa~ only in 2008 that Congress amended section \60J( 3 J to e:\clude private education loans from exemption· Credit transactions, other than those in which 11 security interest is or will be acquired in real property, or in personal property used or expected to be used as the principal dwelling of the consumer and other than private educatiOn loans(as lhntterm Is defined in section 1650{a) of this title), in which the total amount financed exceeds $50,000. •12 IS ll.S.C. § 16030). Similarly, while 15 U.S.C § 163!Ue) currently prov1des that private educational loans must comply with cenain disclosure requirements, no such requ1rement e7\isted until August \4, 2008. Cf. 15 U.S.C § lflJH (effective through August 13, 2008). These changes indicate that Congress understood TILA not to apply to student loans made hefore 2008. The CFL also would not void the parties' student loan agreement even if it apphcd The CJ."L came into effect only in 1995. Ste 1 Bem01rd E. Witkin et at.. Sum. Cal. Law Contracts § 462(2) (lOth ed.20 I I). 8 etwee n 1 990 and 1994, the Consumer Finance Lc:nders Law. Cal. Fin Code§ ~4tlOIJ et '"Cf, repealed by Cal f·in Cotlc ~ 22000 l'l s,•,1. , was in c!Te1..t. /d. The Consumer Fmance Lenders Law provided that an out of-state lender could enforce a consumer loan lawfully made outside of Cahforma Without being subject to the: law. I I A)s to the unpaid princ1pal balance of the Joan together w1th the interest. consideration. brokerage. and all other t:hurges, to the extent of lxu not to c:xceed the unpaid princ1pal b.tlance and the aggregate amount ot Interest consideration, brokerage, and all other charges permitted by th ;~ dtvi';ion •n connection with a loan of the same amount made withtn thts state. Sweaen v. Nowack' Slip Copy (2015) C~l. Fin.Cl1d..: ~ 24-l59, rept!aled by Cal. Fin.Cud.: § 22000 (J ej: .(t-JlJ. Defendant ha~ not shown that the debt Plaintiff seeks to colle~t wus usurious or otherwise fell within the scope of the Consum~r !'inaneon willfully charged or contracted for an amount in eJtcm of that permitted by the statute. Cal. Fin.Code § :!4650, reptaled by Cal. Fin.Codc ~ 22000 •'llt'q. Defendant has not presented sufticient evidence showing th&u Plaintiff willfully violated the Consumer Finance Lender.; Law. C. Equitable Defenses Do Not Bar Plaintiff's Ac:tion Defendant also raises the affirmative defenses of laches and equitable: estoppel. To establish a detense of laches, Defendant must prove ''both an unreasonable delay by the plaintiff and pn:judice to [himself]." Cmm•11u I'. Am. Airline.~. 21 H F.)ll I 07~. I 0!!3 l4th Cir.2000)(citations omitted). Here. any delay by Plaintiff was reasonable and based in pan an Dcft!ndant's lack of communication. Plaintiff relied on DdcncJant 10 notify Plaintiff oi any rdevant changes in his re~idence or income circumstances. (E.g., Ex. 18; Testimony of Helena Fallman: Tes!;-nony of Akc Svensson.) Defendant failed to do so. Based on the totality of the evidence at trial. the Coun rejc:cts the laches defense. Footnotes To establish a defense of equitable estoppel, Defendant must show that (I) the: pany to be estopped must be apprised of the facts: (2) the pany to be estopped must intend that h:s conduct be relied upon or act so that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the pany asserting c:stoppel must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) :ht: party asserting estoppel m\L'it rc:ly upon the cC\nduct to his injul). Drill'<'[( ~·. Ciry .:aJ its own attorneys fC\!s. IT IS SO ORDERED. All Citations Slip Copy, :!015 WL 5165293 1 Defendant submitted these applications on July 20, 1988 (EJ(. 1); April1, 1989 (Ex. 2); November 30, 1989 (Ex. 3), May 27. 1990 (Ex. 4), November 28, 1990 (Ex. 5); June 3, 1991 (Ex. 6); December 19, 1991 (Ex. 7); December t , 1992 (Ex. 8): May 16, 1992 (Ex. 9); November 10, 1993 (Ex. tO); May 22, 1994 (Ex. 11), and June 30 1994 (Ex 12). 2 Plaintiff provided the Court with certified translations ot the relevant statutes as exhibits to ts Notice ot Intent to Apply Foreign law. (Doc. No. 19.) 3 "A claim for repayment of student loans or lor recovery of study support, according to thas act, becomes statute-barred twenty·five years after It was made, unless the limitation Is disrupted prior thereto." 4 Moreover. PlaintiH timely provided notice that it intended to use the Regulations to calculate tnterest and admtnistrative fees pursuant to Federal Rule of C1vil Procedure <4. 1. (Doc. No. 19.) 5 Here, the tnvotces supplied by PlaintiH are denominated in SEK. (E.g., Exs.lB-26.) Accordingly the Court's judgment lS stated in SEK. Wtlfsmette Green Innovation Ctr., LLC v. Ouartis Capital Partners. No 13-CV-00848-JCS, 2014 WL 5281039. at ·1.!-15 (N.O.Cal. Jan.21. 2014); Cal. Civ.Code §§ 676.4, 676.6. Should the parttes seek to convert the Judgment into U .;;, dollars, they must file an application with the Court and provide a convers•on rate as of the date ot rudgment. 6 Today. the CFL contains the same carveout in Cal. F1n.Code § 22322. I a .. . ' EXHIBIT "K" E I T “K" |_J mmdmmubww k4 H IA ha H a ta n3 F: o 1 J. l6 17‘ 18 Ix) 9‘) 1".) {\J {\J N N I‘J CW U1 uh UJ N §-' C) N (Dad Chase 2:14-cv-04492-RSWL-E Document 46 Filed 11I25/15 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:34: ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KINGDOM OF SWEDEN, Plaintiff, CV 14~04492 RSWL (Ex) ORDER re: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 0N v_ THE PLEADINGS [37] MARTIN CHRISTIAN MELIUS, Defendant. yvnngvaVUVUv-n-flM-J I Currently before the Court is Defendant Martin Christian Melius' (“Defendant”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [37], filed September 25, 2015. P_aintiff Kingdom of Sweden (“Plaintiff”) filed this Action on behalf of The Swedish Board for Study Support {“CSN”), against Defendant for: (1) Breach of Contract: (2} Csmmon Count For Money Lent; and (3) Common Count For Money Had And Received [l]. Plaint;ff is seeking to collect amounts owed in unpaid student loans made by .‘K' ‘4 tn .13. Lu M I -.J m {.0 lG ll 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 M 1-1 1‘») I0 N M [\D N I‘J m ml m U" .h- LA.) IQ dtase 2:14cv-04492-RSWL-E Document 45 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 or 20 Page ID #344 CSN to Defendant. For the reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [37]. I . BACKGROUND 1L WW On or about January 1990, Defendant submitted an application for student financial aid (“Application for Student Aid") to CSN. CompL. 2:17-19 £1]; gag Comp1,, Ex. A. As part of the appllcation process, Defendant allegedly agreed to “repay all student loans which he recelved in accordance with, and to otherwise be bound by, the Repayment Regulations for Student Loans” (“Repayment Regulations") set forth by CSN. 1Q. at ‘2:21-24; gag Compl., Ex. B. Pursuant to the terms of :he Application for Student Aid and the Repayment Regulations, CSN agreed to make certain student loans to Defendant, which Defendant agreed to repay “no later than one year after he no longer received student aid from CSN.” Lg; at 3:1-5. A contractual relationship was thereby formed between CSN and Defendant. Lg; Pursuant to the terms 0f the contract, CSN made several student loans to Defendant in the aggregate ‘amount of 617,677 Swedish Crowns, or $95,027.23 U.S. Dollars. Lg; at 3:6-9. Plaint;ff contends that Defendant breached the terms of their contract by repaying only 108,000 Swedish Crowns ($16,615.38 U.S. Dollars), leaving 1,199,640 Swedish Crowns ($184,560.00 U.S. Dollars) unpaid. lg. at 3:10-14. 2 . K' 65 I‘Q l" LA) put \D CD w} 0'} U1 10‘ ll 12 13 l4 15 16 17 [\J Ix) M [\3 lo M NJ: M H x1 m [n .b tn r5) 1-4 O kc} 7‘.) m ase 2:14-cv-G4492-RSWL-E Document 46 Filed 11125115 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:34" B. Prggedural Backdround Plaintiff filed its Complaint [1] on June 11, 2014 :1], seeking $184,560.00 in compensatory damages, :nterest as prov1ded by law, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. Lg; at 4:12~;6. Cn September 25, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [37], alleging that (1) this ‘Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, (2) Plaintiff fails tc state a claim for breach of contract, (3) the breach of contract claim is time-barred, and (4) since :he breach of contract claim should fail, so too should ‘the common count claims. Mot. 1:19-2zl, 9:25-10:12. On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [39]. A hearing for this Motion was scheduled for October 27, 2015. This Motion was taken under submission on October 22, 2015. II . DISCUSSION A. ngal Standard; l. Local Rule 7-3 Local Rule 7-3 provides that before any motion is filed, counsel for the moving party must “first contact ‘opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” L.R. 7~3. The Rule further prov1des that “It1he conference shall take place at least seven (?) days prior to the filing of the motion.” $Q¢ KW {u i4 r4 IA r4 PI O \D CD xi m Ul PO N N N 19d LA) N “J [\J U1 I‘J I‘d N cn [:ase 2:14-cv-04492-RSWL-E Document 45 Filed 11i25/15 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:341 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure lch) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) states that “Lalfter the pleadings are Closed~but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(3). A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be timely.1 “Judgment on the pleadings is preperly granted when, taking all allegations in the pleadings as true, :he moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 0f law,” Knangenberqer v. Citv of Phx., 566 F.3d 936, 939 ‘{9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Merchants Home Delivery_$erv.. Inc. v. Frank B. Hgll & CQ., SO F.3d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1995)), as “there is no issue of material fact in dispute.” FLeming v.,PicEarg, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). On a Rule 12(0) motion, the court must accept as true all the material facts alleged in the complaint and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. LQA The Ninth Circuit has evaluated motions for judgment on the pleadings under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Dwogkin v. Hustler Mafiazine Inc,, 867 F.2d 1L88, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989}. Thus, when ruling on a mot;on for judgment on Che pleadings, a court may consider the pleadings, 1‘ZE a party engages 1n excesszve aelay before filing a motion, the court may refuse to hear the motion on the groand that its consideration will delay or Lnterfere wizh the commencement 0f the trial. erqht a leler. Federal Practice Procedgrg: Civil 3d § 1367. ' ' ~J 0‘. and 4 . K“ UT NH C3 \D m -..l m U1 Jit- Ln) kl H 14 k4 H J3 LA.) N l‘“ [\J N [\J I‘J U LA) 0'3 ab #339 2:14-cv-04492-RSWL-E Document 45 Filed 11125115 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:34' dacuments attached to the pleadings, documents incorporated by reference in the pleadings, and matters of judicial notice. United States v. Ritch;e, 342 F.3d 933, 907-08 {9th Cir. 2003). 3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) states that a federal pleading need only consist of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), A claim need only be “stated with sufficient particularity to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim ls and the grounds upon which it rests.’” ExxonMObil Oil Corp. v. Gasprom. Inc., No. 10-55610, 2011 WL 6396415, at * 1 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Conley v. Gibsgn, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b}(l) Under Federa; Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b){l), a complaint must be dismissed if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims. Fed. R. Civ. ?. 12(b)(l). Defects in subject matter jurisdiction are not waivable and may be raised at any time. Detabali v. St. Luke's Hosp., 482 F.3d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 200?) :citing Ins. Corp. Of Ireland, LLtd. v. Compaqnie des Bauxites de Guinea, 456 U.S. 694, 202 (L982)). For a court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction aver an action, the Plaintiff mast establish: “a (l) legally recognized injury, (9) caused by the named defendant, that is {3) capable of legal or 5 .b-LJNH \D C1) -~J m Ul ase 2:14-cu-04492-RSWL-E Document 46 Filed 1125115 Page 6 o! 20 Page ID #:34: equitable redress” by the court. Schmier v. U.S. Court of Deals for Ninrh ir 1 , 279 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 20023 . B. Mai; 1. Defendant’s Motion is Denied Because Thexe Was No Conference 0f Counsel Under Local,Rule 7-3. Notably, Local Rule 7-3 requires that the parties discuss “thoroughly ...the substance” of the issues :contaLned in the Motion. Lg; (emphasis added). A district court may, in its discretion, refuse to consider a motion when Rule 7-3 is violated. ggg Eggg v. n st n Pro i 7 L P., No. CV 12-05021 MMM (VBKx), 2013 WL 3344912, at *6 (C.D. Cal. April 2. 2013). Defendant filed the present Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Saptember 25, 2015 [37]. Plaintiff notes 1n its Opposition that “[tlhe only conference of ‘counsel which can even arguably be traced to the instant Motion took place on February 4, 2015, over sgvgn and one-half month§ before the Motion was filed.” Dpp'n 4:10-11. Upon review of the Declaration of W. Ernest Mocney in Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Mooney Declaration”}{39filj, this Court . fands that the most recent conference between the parties took place on February 4, 2015, which was in fact seven and one-ha;; months prior to the filing of the presen: Motion. Mooney Decl. fl 2. In this conference, the parties discussed the issue cf the 6. ° K LDUJ-xlmLHJ-EUJNH HI-An-Ir-JI-s .ani-Io l. A.Ease 2:14-cv-o4492-RSWL-E Document 4e Filed 11/215115 Page 7 of 20 Fiage m #349 applicable statute of limitatlons, but did not raise Jthe remaining lssues in the present Motion. lgi at i I 3. Accordingly, the parties could not have discussed any potential resolunion of the remaining ;ssues. As such, the parties‘ conference did not sufficiently address the-substance of the present Motion. Further, although the parties did in fact meet “at least seven (7) days prior t0 the filing of the fM]otion,” Defendant confounds the purpose of the Rule by holding the conference of counsel seven and one-half months prior to the filing of his Motion, at a time where many of the issues were undeveloped and, as such, not discussed. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Judgment 0n the Pleadings [37] is DENIED on these grounds. Nonetheless, this Court elects to consider the Motion on its merits. 2. Alternativelv. Defendant’s Motion i5 Denied on file_MeLiti a. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because the “Revenue Rule” is inapplicable. Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims because the action is not an action on a contract, but rather an action to recover a municipal liability from the Swed;sn gove&nment. Mot. 4:23-5:16. Defendant contends that, 1n applying the Revenue Rule, the district court does not have subjeCt matter 7 K. -1D sh DJ N H t_a H O KO m M1 m U‘ H {\J ON M mm} Ix) (Ease 2:14-cv-04492-RSWL-E Document 46 Filed 11/25/15 Page B of 20 Page ID #:351 jurisdiction to hear the matter. Lg; Defendant misconstrues the applicabi ity o: the Revenue Rule in his Motian.. “[T]he revenue rule merely provides that the courts of one jurisdiction do not recognize the revenue laws of another jurisdictian.” Her Mafiesty the Queen in Right of the_Province of Br$tish7Columbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161, 1163 {9th Cir. 1979). This means, as the Ninth Circuit discussed in u§;_flgj§§;g, that the common law Revenue Rule “prevents a foreign jurisdiction from either instituting a suit to recover taxes, 0r bringing a suit to enferce its own court's judgment for taxes.” lg; at 1163 n.1, The Revenue Rule does not, however, prohibit a foreign sovereign from bringing a claim for loan :epayment, but rather is a discretionary rule that allows federal courts to decline to apply the tax law of foreign sovereigns.2 The Supreme Court has noted; the “principal evil against which the revenue rule was traditionally thought to guard [is] judicial evaluation 25ee Bascuantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 352 (20 C5)(“At common law, the revenue rule generally barred courts from enforcing the tax laws of foreign sovere;gns.”); fiance Ea: ional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 448 (1964)(Wh1te, J., dissenting}; United States v. Traol;c 130 F .3d 547, 550 (2d Ci r 1997‘, cert den.ied. 525 U.S. 81? 41998){“:ou:c5 w;'11 rernally not enforce foreign tax j_dgment s. ")1 Egrooean Cmtv. v. ?.JR NabiscoJ Inc. , 150 F. Supp. 2d 456 476 (E. D. N Y. 2001) {concluding that tne ?.evenue Ru; e d: d not precluce e: