NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant William C. Martucci appeals from the December 6, 2013 Law Division order denying his motion to dismiss a domesticated judgment from Colorado in the amount of $3,601,947.04. We affirm.

Plaintiffs Pricaspian Development Corporation, Jack Grynberg, and Grynberg Petroleum Company obtained a default judgment in Colorado against various parties, including defendant, concerning fraud in the sale of securities. On July 22, 2009, plaintiffs docketed this judgment in New Jersey pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act (the "UEFJA"), N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-25 to-33. Defendant appealed from the order docketing plaintiffs' judgment in New Jersey in January 2010.

Defendant also appealed from the Colorado judgment, and in June 2010, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the matter. Consequently, the Law Division stayed the enforcement of the Colorado judgment within this state on July 23, 2010. The Colorado trial court reinstated plaintiffs' judgment against defendant on August 6, 2012, and on January 3, 2013, the Law Division vacated the stay of execution of the judgment. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against defendant in June 2013.

Defendant then filed the motion under review, seeking to dismiss the domesticated Colorado judgment based upon alleged non-compliance with the UEFJA. The Law Division denied the motion on December 6, 2013, finding that the motion was untimely and otherwise lacked substantive merit.

On appeal, defendant argues that plaintiffs failed to properly domesticate the Colorado judgment in New Jersey and that his right to due process was violated because he did not receive timely notice of the Colorado trial. We disagree.

The United States Constitution requires that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." U.S. Const. art IV, § 1. A state must therefore enforce the judgment of a sister state "if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment[.]" Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 233, 118 S.Ct. 657, 663-64, 139 L. Ed. 2d 580, 592 (1998).

When a party obtains a judgment in another state, he or she may domesticate the judgment in New Jersey pursuant to the UEFJA to facilitate its enforcement. N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-25 to-33. Through this process, New Jersey discharges its obligation to give full faith and credit to judgments entered in other states. Maine v. SeKap, S.A. Greek Coop. Cigarette Mfg. Co., S.A., 392 N.J.Super. 227, 235 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting Singh v. Sidana, 387 N.J.Super. 380, 382 (App. Div. 2006), certif. denied, 189 N.J. 428 (2007)). Domestication of a foreign judgment, however, is not an opportunity to collaterally attack the foreign judgment, except in very limited circumstances, such as the denial of due process in the state issuing the judgment. McKesson Corp. v. Hackensack Med. Imaging, 197 N.J. 262, 275 (2009).

A denial of due process occurs when "`the rendering state 1) lacked personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor, 2) lacked subject matter jurisdiction, [or] 3) failed to provide the judgment debtor adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.'" Sonntag Reporting Servs., Ltd. v. Ciccarelli, 374 N.J.Super. 533, 538 (App. Div. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting In Sik Choi v. Kim, 50 F.3d 244, 248 (3d Cir. 1995)); McKesson, supra, 197 N.J. at 275. "[A]bsent such due process defenses, a litigation pursued to judgment in a sister state is conclusive of the rights of the parties in the courts of every state as though adjudicated therein." Sonntag, supra, 374 N.J. Super. at 538 (citing DeGroot, Kalliel, Traint & Conklin, P.C. v. Camarota, 169 N.J.Super. 338, 343 (App. Div. 1979)). Furthermore, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, a litigant is barred from raising any defenses that could have been raised in the forum state. Ibid.

We affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the domesticated Colorado judgment. The record lacks any credible evidence to support defendant's assertion that plaintiffs failed to comply with the procedural requirements under the UEFJA. Defendant's remaining contentions were not presented to the motion court and are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Defendant further asserts that enforcement of the judgment violated his due process rights, claiming lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. However, defendant fails to provide any credible evidence to support these allegations. See Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 424 N.J.Super. 448, 482 n.12 (App. Div.) (citing Nextel of N.Y. v. Borough of Englewood Cliffs Bd. of Adjustment, 361 N.J.Super. 22, 45 (App. Div. 2003)) ("An argument based on conclusory statements is insufficient to warrant appellate review."), certif. denied, 212 N.J. 198 (2012). Moreover, we are satisfied that defendant's objections to the Colorado proceedings were considered and rejected by the Colorado Court of Appeals in June 2013. Therefore, the trial judge properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the domesticated judgment.

Affirmed.