Legal Document: Ig Leasing Ag v. Samuel Friedmann

On March 05, 2024 a EXHIBIT(S) - 6 - Lutz Aff - Ex 6 - Swiss Judgment February 22 2021 w/translationan was filed involving a dispute between Ig Leasing Ag, and Samuel Friedmann, for Commercial - Contract in the District Court of Rockland County.

Preview
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

EXHIBIT “6”
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024
RECEIVED FEB. 24 2021

District Court of Bülach
Court Composed of a Single Judge

Case no. ER200071-C/U GM/ad

Participants: District Court Judge R. Hürlimann and Court Clerk G. Maissen

Verdict of February 22, 2021

in the case of

IG Leasing AG, of Industriestr. 31, 8305 Dietlikon, the Claimant,

Represented by Lukas Blättler, attorney-at-law, of Dufourstr. 40, Postfach 3020,
8034 Zürich
Represented by Karin Minet-Sauter, attorney-at-law, of Dufourstr. 40, Postfach
3020, 8034 Zürich

against

Samuel Friedmann, born April 28,1970, of 3 Dover Terrace, Monsey,Town of
Ramapo, New York 10952, United States, the Defendant,

regarding legal aid in clear cases
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

-2-

Legal Request:
(file 1 p.2; as appropriate)

The Defendant is asked to pay the Claimant CHF 482,952.85 plus interest at
5 % as of October 26, 2019;
by way of costs and compensation at the Defendant’s expense.

Considerations:

1. Introduction

1.1. Case History

On September 2, 2020 the Claimant filed the abovementioned request for legal
aid in clear cases, enclosing documents (file 1 - 3; file. 4/1-28). On September 10,
2020, the Claimant was asked to pay an advance towards costs and submit
German translations of its foreign-language documents, and the Defendant was
asked to provide an address for correspondence in Switzerland (file. 5). On
September 22, 2020, the court cash office received the advance within the time
limit (file 9), and on October 29, 2020 the translated documents were submitted
within the set deadline (file 12; file 13/3-28). When the request of September 10,
2020 had been delivered to the Defendant at his address in the United States on
October 26, 2020 (file 7 - 8), an attorney hired by the Defendant in the meantime
applied for an extension of deadline until November 16, 2020 (file 14), which was
granted (file 16). In a fax of December 4, 2020 the Defendant’s attorney requested
a repeated extension of the deadline, but without subsequently sending the
original paper version of the request, which she said she would do (act 17).
Because the Defendant provided no address for correspondence in Switzerland, a
notice was duly published in the Official Journal on January 19,2021 asking him to
respond to the Claimant’s request within a set deadline (file 20, file 22 - 23).
On February 12, 2021 the Defendant’s attorney informed the Court that she was
no longer representing him (file 24). In the absence of a response from the
Defendant, the proceedings are ripe for a decision.
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

-3-

1.2. Subject of the Dispute

The Claimant is asking the Defendant to pay lost interest on a lease and the costs
of legal enforcement and insolvency (plus interest on arrears). because the
Defendant committed himelf to do so as a guarantor who is jointly and severally
liable (file 1 p. 4 et seq).

2. Case Details

2.1. Competency

In the international legal case at hand, an international agreement takes
precedence over Swiss International Private Law (“IPRG“) regarding the
geographial competency of courts (Art. 1 par. 2 IPRG). Pursuant to Art. 23 clause
1 a of the Treaty of Lugano, a court previously appointed in writing is competent to
deal with a case as long as at least one of the parties is domiciled in the territory of
a country that is a signatory of the Treaty.

In Clause 11 of the Contract of Guarantee concluded between the Parties
and officially announced, they agreed that the place of jurisdiction is Dietlikon (file
4/1 b S. 4). The Claimant is domiciled in Switzerland (file 4/2), a country bound to
the Treaty of Lugano. Hence, the agreement on court competecy reached beween
the Parties is valid, and the local court of Dietlikon is geographically competent.

Because the resultos a search in ZEFIX indicate that the Defendant is not
registered in the Swiss commercial code or in any other comparable foreign
register (file 1 margin note 6), no commercial law dispute exists within the meaning
of Art. 6 par. 2 pf the Code of Civil Procedures (“ZPO“). Therefore, the commercial
court of the Canton of Zurich is not the competent court.

Because Dietlikon is located in the District of Bülach, the court here is
geographically competent to handle this case. This request for legal aid in clear
cases shall be handled in expedited proceedings (Art. 248 b ZPO), for which a
court composed of a single judge is competent (§ 24 c GOG/ZH).
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

4‫־‬-

2.2. Further Case Requirements

The advance payment which the Claimant requested on September 10, 2020 (file
5 S. 4), was, as already stated above, paid (Considerations, Clause 1.1), (file. 9).
On the basis of the case files there is no indication that the remaining case
requirements were not complied with, therefore the claim may proceed (Art. 59
ZPO).

2.3. Invalid Request for Extension of Deadline

Deadlines imposed by a court may be extended for valid reasons, if the court
receives a request to this effect prior to the deadline (Art. 144 par. 2 ZPO). If, as in
this case, the request is not submitted electronically, furnished with a certified
signature, it must be submitted in paper form (Art. 130 par. 1 ZPO). According to
Swiss federal jurisdiction, faxed requests do not comply with this requirement
because the signature on them is merely a reproduction. Neither can the request
be put right, because the signature was not omitted by accident but was willfully
furnished in an invalid form (BGer.6B_276/2013, E. 1.5; BGE 121 II 254, E. 3 u. 4;
ZR 111/2012, S. 145 f; OG ZH, RT140025, E. 2.c).
As stated above (Considerations, Clause 1.1), the Claimant’s former attorney
sent the Court the second request for a deadline extension on December 4. 2020
only by fax, without following it up with the original paper version, which she said
she would do and which she actually did in the first request (file 17). Because the
deadline request did not comply with the formal requirement, it need not be
investigated.

2.4. No Correspondence Address on the Defendant’s Part

Pursuant to Art. 140 ZPO, a court may ask parties that are domiciled abroad to
provide an address for correspondence in Switzerland. If, despite the court’s
instructions they fail to do so, court correspondence shall be served by being
published in the cantonal official journal or in the Swiss Commercial Gazette, and
shall be deemed to have been duly served on the date of publication (Art. 141
ZPO).
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

-5-

As stated above (Considerations, Clause 1.1), on September 10, 2020, the
Defendant, domiciled abroad, was requested to provide a Swiss address for
correspondence within a set deadline, with a warning that unless he did do
correspondence from the court may be served by being published in the cantonal
official journal (file 5 p. 4). This request was duly delivered to the Defendant at his
address in the United States (file 8), nevertheless no Swiss correspondence
address was provided.

Consequently, in the proceedings at hand, the notifications from the court to
the Defendant are deemed to be duly delivered when published in the Official
Journal of the Canton of Zurich.

2.5. Proceedings

A court composed of a single judge grants legal aid in expedited proceedings
when the subject of the case is undisputed or can be immediately proven and the
legal situation is clear (Art. 257 par. 1 ZPO). If the legal situation is ambiguous or
there is no immediate evidence of the factual circumstances, legal aid cannot be
granted and the court does not deal with the request (Art. 257 par. 3 ZPO).

For a claimant, legal aid in clear cases offers a cost-effective alternative to
ordinary or simplified court proceedings and, apart from declaratory judgments,
can also be used for financial claims. If the court endorses the case, its decision
assumes the full force of law. On the contrary, according to federal court
jurisdiction a dismissal of the claim is not possible. In such case, as in cases where
the conditions for such proceedings are missing, the court issues a no-judgment
decision. This gives the Claimant the possibility to pursue its claim in ordinary or
simplified proceedings (Sutter-Somm/Lötscher, in: Sutter-
Somm/Hasenböhler/Leuenberger, ZPO Komm., 3rd edition, Zurich/Basel/Geneva
2016, Art. 257 N 23 ff, 31 and 43).
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

-6-

3. Material Issues

3.1. Applicable Law

In this present international legal case, Art. 116 IPRG says that the contract is
governed by the law explicitly chosen by the Parties. In Clause 11 of their Contract
of Guarantee, the Parties, apart from choosing the place of jurisdiction, agreed
that the Contract would be governed by Swiss law (file 4/1 b p. 4).

Therefore, Swiss law is applicable to the Contract of Guarantee between
the Parties.

3.2. Contract of Guarantee

3.2.1. Legal Basis

In the Contract of Guarantee, the guarantor places himself under an obligation vis-
a-vis the main debtor’s creditors that he will satisfy all future debts. Every
guarantee is subject to a pre-existing legitimate debt (Art. 492 par. 1 and 2 of the
Law of Obligations “OR“). When setting up the guarantee, the debt must be at
least identifiable, which is the case when the creditors and the main debtor can be
identified and the legal reason for the guaranteed claim is known (Supreme Court
4C.314/2005, E. 3.1).

In the case of liability by natural persons, the certificate or declaration of
guarantee must state not only the maximum amount agreed upon but, in the case
of claims in excess of CHF 2,000, must also be officially registered (Art. 493 par. 1
and 2 OR). In the case of married purposes, the guarantee becomes valid when
the spouse has simultaneously provided written consent (Art. 494 par. 1 OR).

3.2.2. Judgment by the Court

From the Claimant’s undisputed presentation of the facts and from the documents
it furnished, it emerges that on September 6, 2016 the Claimant concluded with
the company Ruben & Sons GmbH, Bedano/Tl, a contract of lease on a so-called
vertical manufacturing facility for metal processing which, due to delay, was
amended or adapted on December 14, 2017.
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

-7-

Under this contract, the Defendant agreed to act as jointly and severally liable
guarantor (file 1 marginal note 12 t. seq. file. 13/4-5). Accordingly, on December
20, 2016, the Defendant, in a publicly registered Contract of Guarantee, the
Defendant committed himself, as a jointly and severally liable guarantor, to satisfy
all the present and future of liabilities of Ruben & Sons GmbH vis-vis the Claimant
up to a maximum amount of CHF 557,000. The Defendant’s wife granted her
written consent also on December 20, 2016 (file 1 marginal note 15 ff; file 4/1 b p. 1
and 3; file 4/6b).

Thus, the Contract of Guarantee of the Parties was validly concluded and
the main debt as at least identifiable at that time.

3.3. Main and Guarantee Claim

3.3.1. Legal Basis

In clause 4 of the Contract of Guarantee, the Parties agreed that the guarantee
would cover all the Claimant’s claims against the main debtor, Ruben & Sons
GmbH, including all legal and contractual claims for damages of any kind, even as
a result of an invalidation of the Contract. In addition, the legally foreseen reduction
of the amount of liability on account of the passing of time or on account of a
reduction of the main debt was explicitly excluded (file 4/1 b p. 2). In principle, such
agreements are permissible (cf. Art. 492 par. 4 OR; Art. 499 par. 2 OR; Art. 500
OR). However, one should note that according to some legal writings, when natural
persons are guarantors, a relative reduction in the amount of guarantee if the main
debt is reduced cannot be altered to the guarantors’ disadvantage in the case of
guarantees for periodically re-occurring services (BSK OR I-Pestalozzi, 7th edition.
Basel 2020, Art. 500 N 5 f). Because in this case the main debt was never even
partially paid (see Consideration, Clause 3.3.2), the question of the legitimacy of
this waiver by the Defendant remains open.
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

-8-

3.3.2. Judgment by the Court

According to the Claimant’s undisputed submission (file 1 margin note 21 ) and the
accompanying documents, Ruben & Sons GmbH paid it only three lease
installments, for the months of January to March 2018 inclusive. Because the
outstanding installments were not paid and no solution was offered, in January
2019 the Claimant threatened legal enforcement and termination of the contract
(file 13/28). Consequently, in February 2019 the Claimant commenced an action
against Ruben & Sons GmbH 2019 (file 13/10), whereupon it was granted
summary disposal in April 2019 (file 13/12) and in June 2019 it delivered the threat
of bankruptcy (file 13/13). In July 2019 it filed a bankruptcy petition to the
bankruptcy court and paid the required advance on costs, whereupon on August
28, 2019 bankruptcy proceedings were opened against Ruben & Sons GmbH, but
on March 6, 2020 were stopped again due to an absence of assets (file 13/20; file
13/21; file 13/22). On April 18, 2019 the Claimant informed Ruben & Sons GmbH
that it was no longer able to use the machine on account of the unpaid lease
installments and said that it would have the machine collected (case 13/15). This
occurred, and the Claimant sold the machine (file 4/16).

The Defendant has expressed no objections regarding the debt (cf. Art. 502
OR), nor has there been any claim of a breach of the creditor’s duty of care and
notification under the terms of Art. 503 OR or Art. 505 OR. The unpaid amount due
to the Claimant from Ruben & Sons GmbH under the contract of lease consists of:
Outstanding lease installments from April 2018 up to and including April 2019,
CHF 180,766.95 plus default interest payment pursuant to Art. 46 of the Civil Code
(file 4/9b) CHF 9,608.45; compensation for forfeited lease installments from May
2019 until the expiry of the contract of lease in December 2021 (file 13/4-5), CHF
413,152; costs of legal enforcement and bankruptcy (payment demand and
bankruptcy threat CHF 406,60, court costs CHF700 and advance payment for
bankruptcy petition CHF1,000.-) CHF 2,106.60 – a total CHF 605,634. Deductible
from this are the proceeds from the sale of the machine (less residual value), as
part of the duty to minimize loss, amounting to CHF122,681.15, so that
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

-9-

the total amount of the claim equals CHF482,952.85 (cf. file 1 marginal note 27 ff;
file 13/8).

Because the main claim is less than the maximum amount of liability agreed
by the Parties, CHF 557,000 (file 4/1 b p. 2), a decrease in the amount of liability
on account of the passage of time was waived and the relative reduction of the
amount of liability in the event of a reduction of the main debt would have been
insignificant in any case, the guarantee claim is equal to the main claim, i.e. CHF
482,952.85.

3.4. Maturity of the Main and Guarantee Claim and Liability of the Guarantor

3.4.1. Legal Basis

On account of accessoriness, the maturity of the main claim is a prerequisite for
the guarantor’s liability. Without any special agreement, the main debt and
guarantee claim are due at the same time (BSK OR I-Pestalozzi, 7th edition. Basel
2020, Art. 501 N 1 and 3).

If the guarantor has declared himself “jointly and severally liable“ or similar,
a so-called solidarity guarantee exists and the guarantor can be made liable to pay
before the main debtor and before the assets are disposed of, if the main debtor
has defaulted with his services and has not responded to any warning, or if he has
been declared insolvent (Art. 496 par. 1 OR). Moreover, the guarantor can only be
made liable before the enforcement of rights of lien and rights of pledge if the judge
determines that these would not cover the claim, or if an agreement has been
reached to this effect, or if the main debtor has become bankrupt or has been
granted a moratorium on settlement (Art. 496 par. 2 OR).

It is up to the guarantor to prove that rights of enforcement or rights of
pledge are not enforceable (Art. 496 par. 2 OR) (BSK OR I-Pestalozzi, Art. 501 N 1
and Art. 496 N 1 f u. 15).
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

- 10-

3.4.2. Judgment by the Court

The Defendant raised neither the objection that the claim is not due, nor the
objection regarding prior enforcement of rights of enforcement and rights of
pledge. As shown above (Considerations, Clauses 3.2.2. and 3.3.2), it emerges
from the Claimant’s undisputed presentation of the facts and from the documents
it furnished that in a letter of January 21, 2019, the Claimant threatened Ruben &
Sons GmbH with legal action on account of its unpaid claim under the contract of
lease and with termination of contract under the terms of the Civil Code.
Subsequently, the Claimant took action against Ruben & Sons GmbH and on
August 28, 2019, brought about its bankruptcy. In a letter of April 18, 2019, the
Claimant terminated the contract of lease and demanded that Ruben & Sons
GmbH pay its claim (file 1 marginal note 22 ff).

Thus, the main claim and, in the absence of agreement between the Parties
(cf. file 4/1 b) also the guarantee claim, are both due and the Defendant, as jointly
and severally liable guarantor, can be made liable to pay within the set limit of
CHF 482,952.85 (cf. Considerations, Clause 3.3.2).

3.5. Default Interest

From the Claimant’s undisputed submission and the accompanying documents, it
transpires that on October 18, 2019 the Claimant called upon the Defendant to
pay its guarantee-protected claim, warning that otherwise, 5% default interest
would be charged as of October 26 2019. Despite further warnings sent to the
Defendant and his wife, no payments were made (file 1 marginal note 37 ff¡ file
13/23 ff).

Thus, the Claimant is entitled to 5% default interest as of October 26, 2019
on its legitimate guarantee claim of CHF 482,952.85.
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

-11 -

3.6. Conclusion

As shown, the Defendant, as jointly and severally liable guarantor, is to be
obligated to pay the Claimant its unpaid claim under the contract of lease with
Ruben & Sons GmbH of December 20, 2016, to the amount of CHF 482,952.85
plus 5 % default interest as of October 26, 2019.

4. Costs and Compensation

Upon closure of the proceedings, the costs are to be charged to the Defendant
(Art. 106 par. 1 ZPO).

In view of the value of the present dispute, about CHF 483,000, the fee on the
decision is to be fixed at CHF 7,700 pursuant to § 4 par. 1 of the Regulation on
Charges in conjunction with §§ 8 par. 1 and 10 par. 1 of the said Regulation.

Also, having been asked to do so by the Claimant (file 1 p. 2), the Defendant
is to be obligated to pay a reasonable amount of party compensation (free of value
added tax) which, with the value of the current dispute, is to be fixed at CHF 7,600
on the basis of § 4 par. 1 of the Legal Fees Regulation in conjunction with § 9 of
the said Regulation, and which appear reasonable.

5. Right of Appeal

Because the value of the dispute exceeds CHF 10,000, the right of appeal against
this decision is granted (Art. 308 ZPO).

The following is hereby ruled:

1. The Defendant is to pay the Claimant CHF 482,952.85 plus 5 % interest as of
October 26 2019.

2. The fee for the decision is fixed at CHF 7,700, subject to further expenditures.
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

- 12-

3. The costs are to be charged to the Defendant. These shall be deducted from
the advance paid by the Claimant, but are refundable by the Defendant.

The remainder of the advance shall be reimbursed to the Claimant, but subject
to the right of settlement of the State.

4. The Defendant is obliged to pay the Claimant party compensation of CHF 7,600.

5. Written notification is to be sent to

The Claimant (with court certificate)
The Defendant, by means of a notice published in the Official Journal of
the Canton of Zurich

6. An appeal against this decision may be filed within 10 days of delivery to the
Upper Court of the Canton of Zurich, Civil Chamber, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich,
enclosing this decision in two copies. The letter of appeal must state the case
and the reasons for the appeal. Any documents are to be enclosed in two
copies.

The statutory moratoriums on deadlines do not apply (Art. 145 Abs. 2 ZPO).

Bülach, February 22, 2021

THE DISTRICT COURT OF BÜLACH
Court Clerk:

G. Maissen

This decision assumed the force of
law on 2.21.22 and is enforceable.

Bülach, March 18, 2021
District Court of Bülach
Court Clerk
G. Maissen
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

iTranslate Professional Services, LLC
80 Fourth Street, Suite 3, Stamford, Connecticut 06905

CERTIFICATION OF TRANSLATION ACCURACY

STATE OF CONNECTICUT )

) SS: Stamford

COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD )

I, Francis Ruth Rubina certify that I am fluent in the English and German
languages, and that the attached document from German to English is a true

and complete translation to the best of my knowledge, ability, and belief.

Sincerely,

fÃ M &
Date: 5
~
/7
'
024
Francis Ruth Rubina

iTranslate Professional Services, LLC
American American Translator Association
Member # 275218
EURPORML
WMSLR

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of May, 2022.

Notary Public

JULIO IVAN CARDENAS
NOTARYPusuc
State of Connecticut
My Commission Expires
November 30, 2022

T 203.667.2836 W itranslatepro.com E docs@itranslatepro.com
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024
Ell6ESAN6EN 2 i feh. 203

Bezirksgericht Bülach

Einzelgericht

Geschäfts-Nr.: ER200071-C/U GM/ad

Mitwirkend: Bezirksrichterin lic. iur. R. Hürlimann und Gerichtsschreiber lic. iur.

G. Maissen

Urteil vom 22. Februar 2021

in Sachen

IG Leasinq AG, Industriestr. 31, 8305 Dietlikon,

Gesuchstellerin

vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic. iur. Lukas Blättler, Dufourstr. 40, Postfach 3020,

8034 Zürich

vertreten durch Rechtsanwältin lic. iur. Karin Dufourstr. Post-
Minet-Sauter, 40,

fach 3020, 8034 Zürich

gegen

Samuel Friedmann, geboren 28. April 1970, 3 Dover Terrace, Monsey,

Town of Ramapo, New York 10952, Vereinigte Staaten,

Gesuchsgegner

betreffend Rechtsschutz in klaren Fällen
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

- 2 -

Rechtsbeqehren:
(act. 1 S. 2; sinngemäss)

Es sei der Beklagte zu verpflichten, der Klägerin CHF 482'952.85 nebst
Zins zu 5 % seit 26. Oktober 2019 zu bezahlen;

unter Kosten- und Entschädigungsfolgen zu Lasten des Beklagten.

Erwäounaen:

1. Einleitung

1.1. Prozessgeschichte

Mit Eingabe vom 2. September 2020 reichte die Gesuchstellerin das oben aufge-

führte Begehren um Rechtsschutz in klaren Fällen samt Beilagen ein (act. 1 - 3;

act. 4/1-28). Mit Vedügung vom 10. September 2020 wurde die Gesuchstellerin

zur Zahlung eines Kostenvorschusses sowie zum Einreichen von deutschen

Obersetzungen ihrer fremdsprachigen Beilagen aufgefordert und der Gesuchs-

gegner zur Bezeichnung eines Zustellungsdomizils in der Schweiz (act. 5). Am

22. September 2020 ging bei der Gerichtskasse binnen Frist der Vorschuss ein

(act. 9) und am 29. Oktober 2020 innert erstreckter Frist die übersetzten Beilagen

(act. 12; act. 13/3-28). Nachdem die Verfügung vom 10. September 2020 dem

Gesuchsgegner per Rechtshilfe am 26. Oktober 2020 an seinem Wohnort in den

USA hat zugestellt werden können (act. 7 - 8), ersuchte die vom Gesuchsgegner

in der Zwischenzeit mandatierte Rechtsvertreterin am 16. November 2020 um

Fristerstreckung (act. 14), was gewährt wurde (act. 16). Mit Fax-Eingabe vom

4. Dezember 2020 stellte die Anwältin des Gesuchsgegners erneut ein Frister-

streckungsgesuch, ohne jedoch, entgegen ihrer Ankündigung, die Originaleingabe

nachzureichen (act. 17). Weil der Gesuchsgegner kein Zustellungsdomizil in der

Schweiz bezeichnet hatte, wurde ihm, wie für den Säumnisfall angedroht (act. 5

S. mit im Amtsblatt publizierter vom 19. Januar 2021 Frist zur Stel-
4), Verfügung

lungnahme zum Begehren der Gesuchstellerin angesetzt (act. act. 22 - 23).
20,

Mit Eingabe vom 12. Februar 2021 teilte die Rechtsanwältin des Beschwerdegeg-

ners dem Gericht mit, diesen nicht mehr zu vertreten (act. 24). Nachdem eine

Antwort des Gesuchsgegners ausgeblieben ist, ist das Verfahren spruchreif.
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

- 3 -

1.2. Streitgegenstand

Die Gesuchstellerin fordert vom Gesuchsteller die Bezahlung von unbezahlten

und entgangenen Leasingzinsen sowie von Betreibungs- und Konkurskosten

(zzgl. Verzugszinsen), weil dieser sich als Solidarbürge hiezu verpflichtet habe

(act. 1 S. 4 ff).

2. Prozessuales

2.1. Zuständigkeit

Im vorliegenden internationalen Verhältnis gehen hinsichtlich der örtlichen Zu-

ständigkeit völkerrechtliche Verträge dem schweizerischen IPRG vor (Art. 1

Abs. 2 IPRG). Gemäss Art. 23 Ziff. 1 Bst. a LugÜ ist ein u.a. schriftlich vereinbar-

tes Gericht zuständig, sofern mindestens eine der Parteien ihren Wohnsitz im Ho-

heitsgebiet eines durch das Lugano-Übereinkommen gebundenen Staates hat.

Die Parteien haben in Ziffer 11 des von ihnen abgeschlossenen und öffent-

lich beurkundeten Bürgschaftsvertrages als Gerichtsstand Dietlikon vereinbart

(act. 4/1b S. 4). Die Gesuchstellerin hat ihren Sitz in der Schweiz (act. 4/2), einem

durch das Lugano-Obereinkommen gebundenen Staates. Die Gerichtsstandsab-

rede der Parteien ist demnach beachtlich und damit das für Dietlikon örtlich zu-

ständige Gericht massgeblich.

Da der Gesuchsgegner gemäss Abfrage im ZEFIX weder im schweizeri-

schen Handelsregister noch gemäss unbestritten gebliebener der Ge-
Darstellung

suchstellerin in einem vergleichbaren ausländischen Register eingetragen ist

(act. 1 Rz 6), liegt keine handelsrechtliche Streitigkeit im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 2

ZPO vor. Somit ist das Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich nicht zuständig.

Weil sich Dietlikon im Bezirk Bülach befindet, ist das hiesige Gericht für die

vorliegende Streitigkeit örtlich zuständig. Das vorliegende Gesuch um Rechts-

schutz in klaren Fällen wird im summarischen Verfahren behandelt (Art. 248

Bst. b ZPO), wofür das Einzelgericht sachlich zuständig ist (§ 24 Bst. c GOG/ZH).
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2024 11:41 AM INDEX NO. 031192/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2024

- 4 -

2.2. Weitere Prozessvoraussetzungen

Der mit Verfügung vom 10. September 2020 von der Gesuchstellerin verlangte

Kostenvorschuss wurde (act. 5 S. wie vorne bereits erwähnt Zif-
4), (Erwägung

fer geleistet (act. 9). Es ergeben sich vorliegend aus den Akten keine An-
1.1),

haltspunkte dass weitere Prozessvoraussetzungen nicht erfüllt wo-
dafür, wären,

mit auf das Gesuch einzutreten ist (Art. 59 ZPO).

2.3. Formungültiges Fristerstreckungsgesuch

Vom Gericht angesetzte Fristen können aus zureichenden Gründen erstreckt

werden, wenn das Gericht vor Fristablauf darum ersucht wird (Art. 144 Abs. 2

ZPO). Das Gesuch wie vorliegend nicht elektronisch mit einer qualifizier-
hat, falls,

ten Signatur, schriftlich in Papierform zu erfolgen (Art. 130 Abs. 1 ZPO). Gemäss

bundesgerichtlicher entsprechen Fax-Eingaben diesem Former-
Rechtsprechung

fordernis wegen der zwangsläufig kopierten Unterschrift nicht. Die Eingabe kann

auch nicht nachgebessert da die Unterschrift nicht versehentlich unter-
werden,

lassen, sondern bewusst nicht rechtsgültig angebracht worden ist (BGer.

6B_276/2013, E. 1.5; BGE 121 II 254, E. 3 u. 4; ZR 111/2012, S. 145 f; OG ZH,

RT140025,

Case Info

Judge

Sherri L Eisenpress Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 05, 2024

Case Filing Date

March 05, 2024

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Ig Leasing Ag v. Samuel Friedmann

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties