A Reliable Solution for Cross Border Litigation in Mexico.

Cross border litigation refers to legal disputes involving parties, assets, actions, or laws spanning multiple countries. For example, a claim for breach of contract between a U.S. and Mexican company would constitute cross border litigation. The “cross border” component introduces complexities and challenges not found in domestic litigation.

There are several important aspects that set cross border litigation apart:

• Jurisdictional questions regarding the appropriate court venue across countries
• Serving notice and process on foreign defendants per local rules
• Evidentiary issues spanning multiple countries
• Determining which country’s laws and procedures govern
• Enforcing foreign judgments or arbitration awards locally

The intricacies of cross border disputes means hiring lawyers experienced in this field is crucial. Expert legal counsel will:

• Understand cultural aspects that impact dispute resolution
• Offer strategic advice on jurisdiction, venue, and governing law
• Navigate local court and arbitration processes in multiple countries
• Know international laws and practices for obtaining foreign evidence and documents
• Have working relationships with lawyers abroad to facilitate handling all aspects of international claims

Much of this decision has to do with practical reasons, that is, when will a Mexican court provide for a more efficient and cost-effective litigation for your recovery of debt. Generally, a non-complex contested commercial case will take approximately 1-2 years to be resolved in a Mexican court, without adding an appeal process and any constitutional injunction proceedings (“Amparo”), which could add up another 9 to 12 months. That time could very well double in a complex commercial dispute or a collection case involving a large amount of money. It is probably only in these two last scenarios where you could consider choosing a foreign court or arbitration for resolving your disputes instead of a Mexican court.

Just to get an idea, the following costs should be considered when thinking about bringing a claim to a foreign (judicial) court or an arbitration tribunal:

• Arbitration costs. According to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), costs add up to $5,875 dollars for a $25,000 dollars case, and $13,000 dollars for a $100,000 dollars case, for arbitrator’s fees (one, and not including his expenses) and administrative expenses. In Mexico, the Arbitration Center of Mexico (CAM) charges around $7,700 dollars for arbitrators’ fees (also one, and not including expenses) and administrative expenses for any lawsuit of up to $100,000 dollars.
• Counsel’s fees for arbitration. Lawyers involved in arbitration generally will charge an hourly fee for their services, and not a fixed fee or a contingency fee.
• Costs for service of process. If you are going to bring a case in a foreign court and your debtor is located in Mexico, you will have to comply with Mexican procedure rules for proper service of process in Mexico. That means you will have to go through a Mexican court to serve the defendant properly (through a law clerk and “not” through private process-servers) once a formal request has been done through a letter rogatory from the foreign court. Failure to follow this process will make your judgment unenforceable. This service will require the help of counsel in Mexico, who will generally charge an hourly fee. (It is also recommended to substantially comply with Mexican procedure rules for the service of process during arbitration. Failure to do this could allow a defendant to argue violation of his fundamental rights of due process provided under the Mexican Constitution).
• Costs for enforcing a judgment. Again, you are going to need the help of counsel in Mexico to enforce a judgment. They can charge either hourly fees or a contingency fee. (For additional information about enforcement of foreign judgments please check out or article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”)

Adding up all these costs (without considering pre-judgment remedies), you would realize that a recovery for a modest amount of money may not result in a profitable business after all if filing suit outside of Mexico or commencing arbitration. For this reason, we believe that collection cases worth $100,000.00 dollars or less are best pursued directly through a Mexican court.

You should be confident that Mexican courts are each day more and more reliable and efficient, especially for these kinds of cases. Retaining an attorney in Mexico for collection will waive all the above-mentioned costs, since many will be willing to work under a contingency fee.

For detailed information on efficiency of Mexican courts and legal proceedings in Mexico to enforce claims, as well as the legal strategies to overcome challenges, please read our article “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

Yes. This is a game-changing development in Mexican law. Following landmark Supreme Court rulings (2019-2020), creditors can now freeze bank accounts without providing specific account numbers or bank names.

The process is now straightforward:

1. The creditor declares under oath that they lack knowledge of other reachable debtor assets.
2. The court issues a nationwide order to Mexico’s National Banking and Securities Commission (“Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores”, CNBV).
3. The CNBV orders all financial institutions in Mexico to find and freeze the debtor’s accounts.

This remedy, which requires posting a bond, works for pre-judgment attachment actions before filing a lawsuit and during active litigation. It provides powerful leverage for settlement, as debtors can no longer easily hide funds.

For a detailed guide on this process, read our article: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

Since Mexico does not permit U.S.-style pre-trial discovery, using preliminary actions is a critical strategy to secure assets and gather evidence before filing a formal complaint.

The most powerful tools include:

• Pre-Judgment Attachment (“Embargo Precautorio”): This is the most powerful tool. It allows you to freeze bank accounts, seize inventory, encumber real estate, and garnish receivables before the debtor knows you are filing suit.
• Preliminary Proceedings for Acknowledgment of Debt: This summons the debtor to court for the sole purpose of confirming or denying the debt under oath. A non-appearance creates a legal presumption that the debt is acknowledged.
• Preliminary Proceedings to Obtain Evidence: This allows you to subpoena documents from third parties (like brokers, shippers, or banks) to build your case, which is essential since you cannot ask for them after filing.

These actions provide tremendous leverage and often compel a settlement before expensive litigation.

For more on these pre-litigation tools, read our article: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

According to the Federal Code of Civil Procedure (FCCP)—which most States’ Codes have followed, a foreign court will be recognized as the proper venue (with jurisdictional powers), for purposes of enforcing its judgments, when rules on jurisdiction taken into account by the foreign court are compatible with those provided for under Mexican law. These are the following:

1. Forum selection clauses will be valid and enforceable if there is no actual obstacle or denial of justice, considering the circumstances involved and its relations among parties.
2. Forum selection clauses will not be valid when the right to select a forum works exclusively in favor of one of the parties.
3. If there is no forum selection clause, territorial jurisdiction is conferred to the court of either:
   • The place designated by the defendant to be notified or summoned for an action, or where a formal demand is to be made upon him to perform on a contract or obligation.
   • The place where performance of a contractual obligation was agreed to.
   • The address or place of residence of the defendant.

The Mexican Commercial Code provides for several precautionary measures for commercial matters (cases that arise out of commercial disputes), including the orders for seizure of assets (“embargo”), which has both features of the attachment and garnishment orders. Such remedy (the “attachment order”), will allow us to seize movables assets in possession of the debtor, or to levy on real estate owned by the debtor by an act of recording or filing, and also to levy on the debtor’s tangible personal property in the possession of a third party, or to garnish rights (intangible assets) such as debt owed to a debtor, or funds in bank accounts.

Although the remedy is available to all creditors, there are certain conditions and requirements that must be fully complied with since the measure is granted as an ex parte relief. First, the petition for an attachment order, as a precautionary measure, has to be supported by documents or witnesses showing that: 1) petitioner has a prima facie underlying claim on the merits; and 2) there’s a potential risk that debtor will hide or transfer ownership rights on his real or personal property.

Second, once the attachment order is granted, the creditor must post a bond that will indemnify the debtor for damages if there’s any wrongful attachment, or if creditor does not prevail in his case with a favorable judgment. The attachment will be executed only after the bond is posted. (The amount required for the bond is left to the court’s discretion, and generally ranges from 5% to 20% of the value of the claim).

Third, since the attachment is a remedy ancillary to a lawsuit, the attachment will be ineffective if a complaint is not filed within three days of executing the attachment order. Such term can be extended if the complaint has to be filed and followed in a foreign country.

For detailed information on all preliminary actions (including pre0judgment attachment) applicable to debt collection claims, please read our article “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

It impacts it completely. Unlike U.S. courts, Mexico has no pre-trial discovery—no depositions, no interrogatories, no requests for production.

This means you must start the lawsuit with all your evidence already in hand.

The initial complaint literally “makes or breaks” your case. You must attach all contracts, invoices, shipping documents, and correspondence at the time of filing. You generally cannot amend your complaint or add new evidence later. If your evidence is weak at the start, your case is extremely vulnerable. This makes pre-filing preparation the single most important factor for success.

For a comprehensive review of this topic, read our article: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

The requirements are dramatically different. The U.S. uses “notice pleading” (a “short and plain statement”), while Mexico requires “exhaustive pleading.” Your initial complaint must be a complete case file.

Key differences:

• All Evidence Attached: In Mexico, all contracts, invoices, and supporting documents must be physically attached to the initial complaint.
• No Amendments: You generally cannot add new evidence or legal arguments later.
• Anticipate Defenses: The complaint must proactively anticipate and counter all possible defenses from the outset.
• Strict Formality: Mexico’s “legality principle” (“principio de legalidad”) means minor technical defects in the pleading can lead to the entire case being dismissed.

For more on evidence requirements, read our article: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

The primary challenge is time and bureaucracy. Mexican courts require a formal Power of Attorney (POA) to prove your lawyer has authority to act for your foreign corporation.

Obtaining this POA often takes months. It must be notarized in your home jurisdiction, certified by corporate records, and legalized via an Apostille. This process is slow and costly.

The Faster Alternative: Assignment of Claim Rights. To file urgent actions (like a pre-judgment attachment) immediately, you can assign rights to a claim. Through a simple letter of assignment, signed before two witnesses, you can transfer limited rights to a designated individual in Mexico, allowing them to file the case without a formal POA. Yes, there is risk as title to the claim passes to the assignee, which is why you need to have a strong services or “mandate” agreement in place to make sure proceeds from collection of the claim are returned back to the assignor.

To understand which option is right for your case and understand how you can protect assignor’s rights through a “mandate” agreement, read our article: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

Yes, in many cases. Mexico’s federal judiciary implemented a comprehensive e-justice platform in 2020 that allows for electronic filing, real-time case tracking, digital notifications, and videoconference hearings.

However, implementation varies significantly. The system’s robustness depends on the jurisdiction (federal vs. state) and the specific state.

• High-Efficiency States: Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, Querétaro, and Nuevo León have strong, modern e-justice systems.
• Variable States: Other states may have limited platforms or still rely heavily on paper processes.

For more on court procedures, read our article: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

According to the 2023-2024 Mexico Rule of Law Index by the World Justice Project, the states ranking highest for civil justice efficiency, impartiality, and lack of corruption are:

• Guanajuato
• Zacatecas
• Aguascalientes
• Sinaloa
• Chihuahua
• Querétaro

Our firm’s extensive litigation experience throughout the country aligns with this data. Conversely, states like Guerrero, Morelos and Veracruz present much higher risks. Public rankings don’t capture all factors, which is why local counsel with insight into specific regional issues is essential.

For our full analysis on court performance, read our article: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

Yes, in many cases, filing an administrative claim is a powerful and highly strategic tool that should be used before resorting to a full lawsuit. These claims are handled by specialized federal agencies that act as quasi-judicial bodies.

These agencies have two primary functions:

1. Conciliation: To act as a formal mediator and attempt to broker a settlement between you and the company.
2. Sanctions: To investigate the company’s conduct and, if it finds a violation of federal law, to impose penalties such as fines.

These claims are most valuable in specific industries:

• CONDUSEF: Handles all claims against banks, financial institutions, bonding companies, and insurance companies. This is especially valuable for cross-border transactions, as it includes credit insurers, allowing you to file a direct claim to compel payment on a policy.
• PROFECO: Handles all claims against general merchants or suppliers of goods and services.

The strategic value is immense, particularly the unique benefit of filing with CONDUSEF:

• It Creates Favorable Jurisdiction (Forum Shopping): This is a critical, often-overlooked benefit. If you file a claim with CONDUSEF in any of its local offices (e.g., in Tijuana or Cancun, regardless of where the defendant is), you gain the right to file your subsequent lawsuit in the federal courts of that same city, at your sole discretion. This allows you to choose a jurisdiction that is more efficient or favorable, bypassing any inconvenient venue specified in your original contract.
• It Compels Evidence: The agency will force the defendant (the bank, insurer, or merchant) to produce documents and formally respond to your claim. This is a form of discovery that is not available in a normal lawsuit.
• It Halts the Statute of Limitations: Filing the claim officially “stops the clock” on your right to sue, protecting you from deadlines while you negotiate.
• It’s Low-Cost, High-Leverage: It forces the defendant to the negotiating table with a government agency present, which often leads to a much faster and cheaper settlement than a full-blown lawsuit.

Even if conciliation fails, the evidence you obtain and the jurisdictional advantage you gain are invaluable for building a stronger case for subsequent litigation.

For more on these pre-litigation strategies, read our article: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Legal Debt Recovery in Mexico.”

The process involved for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Mexico (called “homologation”), is quite a rigorous one. It is a process in which both local and federal rules of procedure come into play, and one that goes hand in hand with another procedure on letters rogatory. According to article 571 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure—which most States have followed, recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment will take place only when the following conditions are met:

1. All formalities for letters rogatory are satisfied.
2. Judgment is not the result of an in rem right (pertaining to real estate).
3. The court rendering the judgment had proper jurisdiction to try the matter and to pass judgment on it.
4. Service of process has been completed upon defendant in due legal form.
5. The judgment must be final and have the force of res judicata.
6. There must be no case tried by a Mexican court which is a result of the same legal actions.
7. The judgment must not be contrary to Mexican public policy (ordre public).
8. The judgment must meet all the formal requirements necessary to be deemed authentic (legalization).

The process for homologation requires that defendant is granted a nine-day period to file an answer to the petition for enforcement and to make allegations or to bring evidence in court. After the court has decided which evidence proposals are admitted, it will set up a hearing date for its reproduction. Once the evidence is fully rendered, the court will be ready to rule either granting homologation or denying it, through formal judgment. An appeal process will be available to both parties, granting them five days to appeal and file their briefs. (For detailed information on how to enforce a foreign judgment, including recommendations, please read our article on “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation“).

Yes, enforcing a foreign arbitration award is significantly more straightforward and predictable. This is because it is governed by the New York Convention, which has a very simple, streamlined process.

Enforcing a foreign court judgment (a process called homologación) is a more complex judicial proceeding. However, binding jurisprudence from Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) has strengthened the position of judgment creditors, affirming that deference to foreign judgments is the rule. While this ruling makes judgment enforcement more viable, arbitration generally remains the faster path.

For a comprehensive comparison, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

This is a common defense, but its scope is very narrow. A debtor cannot simply claim a judgment violates “public policy” (“orden público”) because the foreign law is different from Mexican law.

Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) has issued binding jurisprudence confirming this. To deny enforcement, the violation must be a “grave and offensive deviation” from Mexico’s most “basic principles and fundamental essences”.

For example, in the case that set this binding precedent, the debtor argued a Canadian judgment was unenforceable because the Canadian court required a bond to file an appeal. The SCJN rejected this argument, ruling that a simple difference in procedure is not a public policy violation.

For more on this topic, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

The most critical mistake is waiting until after you get a foreign judgment to consult Mexican legal counsel. Many procedural errors made in the original foreign lawsuit are fatal to enforcement in Mexico and cannot be fixed later.

Common fatal mistakes include:

• Service of Process Errors: Using a private process server to serve the defendant in Mexico. This is invalid under Mexican law and makes your judgment 100% unenforceable.
• Failing to Neutralize Defenses: If the underlying contract has a “Mexican courts only” jurisdiction clause, the debtor will use it to block your judgment. This defense must be neutralized before the judgment is final, either by (A) having the foreign court proactively nullify the clause (a strategy validated by an instructive ruling) or (B) basing your claim on non-contractual grounds like tort or restitution.
• Authentication Failures: Missing certifications and Apostilles or using improper translations for the judgment and all related documents. Keep in mind that the Mexican legal system is extremely formalistic (almost “sacramental”), which requires detailed attention to certifications.

To avoid these pitfalls, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

Foreign judgment enforcement (homologation) is a formal court proceeding, not a simple registration. You should budget for a minimum of 12 to 24 months from filing the petition.

The timeline can be significantly longer if the debtor actively contests the action or files appeals. The process involves serving the debtor, allowing them to present defenses (like those discussed in these FAQs), and then litigating those defenses. This is why proper strategic preparation is essential to minimize delays.

For a complete breakdown, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

Service of process is one of the most critical and challenging aspects of cross-border litigation. Mexico follows a strict formality where, in most cases, only official court clerks (“actuarios”) can serve notifications.

This has major consequences:

• No Private Process Servers: Unlike in the U.S., service by a private party is legally invalid.
• Fatal for Enforcement: This is the #1 killer of foreign judgments. If you served a defendant in Mexico during your original U.S. lawsuit using a private server, that judgment is unenforceable in Mexico because it violates the debtor’s constitutional due process rights.
• Delays: This formality can cause significant delays, as court clerks are often overwhelmed.

For a comprehensive guide on service requirements, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

Yes. This is the most common defense debtors use, but it can be defeated with the correct strategy. We have two primary methods:

1. Strategy 1: Attack the Clause (Contractual Claim). In this strategy, you sue for breach of contract in the U.S. and proactively ask the U.S. judge to nullify the jurisdiction clause (e.g., for violating your state’s public policy). A highly persuasive (though non-binding) precedent from the Twelfth Circuit, litigated by our firm in the State of Sinaloa (Amparo 233/2023), established that a U.S. court’s specific decision to nullify the clause is part of the “foundations of law” of the judgment.

This is critical because federal procedure law and binding case law (jurisprudence) from Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) (derived from Amparo 14/2021) prohibits the Mexican judge in the enforcement (homologation) proceeding from reviewing the “motivations or foundations of fact or law” of the foreign judgment. Therefore, the U.S. court’s ruling on the clause is res judicata (a final, settled matter) and cannot be re-litigated in Mexico.

1. Strategy 2: Bypass the Clause (Non-Contractual Claim). This is often the cleaner strategy. Instead of suing for breach of contract, you sue in the U.S. for an independent civil wrong (“business tort”), such as fraud, tortious interference, or trade secret misappropriation. You can also sue for restitution based on unjust enrichment. Since these claims do not arise from the contract, the jurisdiction clause within the contract is legally irrelevant and cannot be used as a defense.

To see how these strategies are applied, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

The Mexican court is not ignoring the clause; rather, (A) it is respecting the foreign judgment that already legally nullified it, or (B) the clause is legally irrelevant to the claim.

• In Scenario (A): Binding jurisprudence from Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) (derived from Amparo 14/2021) mandates that an enforcement (homologation) proceeding is not a new trial. The Mexican judge is strictly prohibited from reviewing the merits, or “foundations of fact or law,” of the foreign judgment. A highly persuasive (though non-binding) federal ruling litigated by our firm (Amparo 233/2023) applied this exact principle, holding that the U.S. judge’s decision to nullify the clause was res judicata (a settled matter) and could not be re-litigated in Mexico.
• In Scenario (B): If you sue for fraud (a tort) instead of breach of contract, the source of the legal obligation is the wrongful act, not the contract. Therefore, the contract’s jurisdiction clause simply does not apply to your non-contractual claim.

For more on this topic, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

You must be proactive. Your U.S. lawsuit must be strategically structured to neutralize future defenses in Mexico. Discuss these two strategies with your U.S. attorney:

1. The Contractual Route (Attack the Clause): Ask your U.S. lawyer to explicitly request a ruling on the nullity of the Mexican jurisdiction clause. A highly instructive (non-binding) precedent, litigated by our firm (Amparo 233/2023), provides a successful roadmap for this. In that case, the U.S. court nullified a “Mexico-only” clause because it violated California’s public policy (specifically, the Corporations Code). Getting this ruling “shields” your judgment by making the issue res judicata, which Mexican courts must respect per the binding SCJN precedent (from Amparo 14/2021).
2. The Non-Contractual Route (Bypass the Clause): Ask your lawyer to build a strong, independent case for business torts (like fraud) or unjust enrichment, in addition to any contract claim. This provides an alternative path to victory that is insulated from the contract’s jurisdiction clause.

While it does not make your case easier, it does strengthen your homologation case. These precedents significantly strengthen a creditor’s position by defeating the two most common “silver bullet” defenses used by Mexican debtors:

1. The “Public Policy” Defense is Limited: The SCJN’s binding ruling makes it clear that simple procedural differences (like appeal bonds) are not public policy violations.
2. The “Jurisdiction Clause” Defense is Defeatable: The instructive federal ruling and the use of alternative legal theories (torts, restitution) provide clear blueprints for neutralizing this defense.

This creates a much more predictable and secure path for enforcing foreign judgments in Mexico.

For our full analysis, read: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

Res judicata simply means “a matter already judged.” In this context, it is the core principle that gives your judgment power.

Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) has affirmed as binding precedent that homologation is built on respect for the “acquired rights” that come from a foreign judgment that is final and binding (“cosa juzgada”). The SCJN established a general rule that demands “respect and deference to the decisions of foreign tribunals that have reached the status of res judicata, concluding that rejection of homologation should be the exception”.

When your debtor tries to re-argue a point (like a jurisdiction clause that was already nullified by the U.S. court), this principle is key. As demonstrated in a persuasive (non-binding) ruling, the U.S. court’s decision is res judicata, and the Mexican court is prohibited from re-examining it.

For a detailed look at this doctrine, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

No. This is a common misconception. Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) has issued binding case law (jurisprudence, referenced as Tesis 1a./J. 150/2025) stating that a specific treaty is not required.

The SCJN clarified that the ability to enforce a foreign judgment is based on principles of international cooperation, courtesy, and respect for res judicata (“cosa juzgada”). In the absence of a treaty (e.g., with Canada, as in the SCJN’s case), Mexican courts simply apply the procedural rules listed in Mexico’s Code of Commerce (Article 1347-A).

For more on this topic, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

No, this defense is extremely limited. The Mexican Supreme Court (SCJN) has ruled in a binding precedent (Tesis 1a./J. 149/2025) that a simple difference in legal systems is not a valid “public policy” defense.

In the case that set this precedent, the debtor argued the Canadian judgment was unenforceable because the Canadian court required a monetary bond to file an appeal. The SCJN rejected this argument, ruling that just because a foreign procedure is different, it does not automatically violate public policy. To be a valid defense, the foreign procedure must represent a “grave and evident deviation” from Mexico’s fundamental principles of justice.

For more on public policy defenses, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

No. Absolutely not. This is the most important rule in homologation. The Mexican Supreme Court (SCJN) has established as binding precedent (derived from A.R. 14/2021) that the Mexican judge is strictly prohibited from analyzing “the justice or injustice of the ruling, nor on the motivations or foundations of fact or law on which it is based.”

The SCJN demands “respect and deference” for foreign decisions that are res judicata (final and binding), establishing that rejection of a judgment should be the exception, not the rule. The judge must show “just consideration towards the identity and the rights, uses, and customs of other States.”

The Mexican court’s only function is to act as a “gatekeeper” to verify procedural requirements:

• That the judgment is authentic.
• That the judgment is “final” in its country of origin.
• That the defendant was properly served.
• That it does not violate fundamental public policy (a very high bar, as explained in the next FAQ).

The judge cannot re-open the case, re-weigh your evidence, or question the finding of liability.

For a full guide on this process, read our article: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”

This is the most complex exception to the “no re-examination” rule. While the judge cannot re-litigate the facts, they do have a duty to analyze if the remedy itself violates Mexico’s fundamental public policy.

Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) has issued binding case law (e.g., Tesis 1a./J. 65/2025) based on the American Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits “any… form of exploitation of man by man.” This doctrine requires Mexican judges to analyze contractual clauses on their own initiative (“de oficio”) to strike down any “disproportionate” or “abusive” penalties.

The debtor’s legal team might argue that excessive punitive, double, or treble damages are a form of “exploitation” and are therefore contrary to Mexican public policy.

However, the creditor’s counter-argument is based on another binding SCJN precedent (Tesis 1a. CCLXXXIII/2016). This ruling states that this special duty to analyze “usury” or “exploitation” only applies while a case is sub judice (under review). We argue that since your foreign judgment is already final (“cosa juzgada”, a settled matter), the case is no longer sub judice, and the judge’s power to review the amount is extinguished.

This is a highly technical legal battle, but it highlights that yes, the amount of damages is the one part of a foreign judgment that a Mexican court may be convinced to review and potentially limit.

For more on public policy defenses, read: “How to Enforce a US Judgment in Mexico: Hidden Rules on Homologation.”