post-judgment interest rate, but refutes Ramon’s other arguments. It contends that the district court properly withheld recognition of the Mexican judgment and properly applied Texas law. Additionally, as an alternative ground for upholding the district court’s decision not to recognize the Mexican judgment, Southwest Livestock argues that Ramón failed to serve it with proper service of process, and therefore, the Mexican court lacked personal jurisdiction. II We must determine first whether the district court properly refused to recognize the Mexican judgment. Our jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. Hence, we must apply Texas law regarding the recognition of foreign country money-judgments. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (<HOLDING>); Success Motivation Institute of Japan, Ltd.
holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases holding that a federal district court sitting in diversity must apply its forum states choice of law rules holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law holding that a federal court sitting in diversity is bound to follow the law of the forum state