§ 1717.Bases For Personal Jurisdiction

Title 11. Money Judgments of Other Jurisdictions · Chapter 2. Foreign-Country Money Judgments · Last amended 2018 · Last verified July 29, 2026

In one sentenceSection 1717 defines when a foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction for nonrecognition purposes, but bars that ground for nonrecognition where the defendant was personally served abroad, appeared voluntarily, agreed to jurisdiction in advance, was domiciled or organized there, had a relevant business office there, or caused the claim through operating a vehicle or aircraft there.

Full Text of § 1717

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c)

(a) For the purpose of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1716, a foreign court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant if either of the following conditions is met:

(1) The foreign court lacks a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction that would be sufficient according to the standards governing personal jurisdiction in this state.

(2) The foreign court lacks personal jurisdiction under its own law.

(b) A foreign-country judgment shall not be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) if any of the following apply:

(1) The defendant was served with process personally in the foreign country.

(2) The defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceeding, other than for the purpose of protecting property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceeding or of contesting the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant.

(3) The defendant, before the commencement of the proceeding, had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved.

(4) The defendant was domiciled in the foreign country when the proceeding was instituted or was a corporation or other form of business organization that had its principal place of business in, or was organized under the laws of, the foreign country.

(5) The defendant had a business office in the foreign country and the proceeding in the foreign court involved a cause of action or claim for relief arising out of business done by the defendant through that office in the foreign country.

(6) The defendant operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign country and the proceeding involved a cause of action or claim for relief arising out of that operation.

(c) The list of bases for personal jurisdiction in subdivision (b) is not exclusive. The courts of this state may recognize bases of personal jurisdiction other than those listed in subdivision (b) as sufficient for the purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).

End

Plain-English Summary

Lack of personal jurisdiction is one of the mandatory bars to recognition under the previous section, and this section fills in what that means. A foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction if it lacked a basis that would satisfy California's own jurisdictional standards, or if it lacked jurisdiction under its own country's law, whichever test the party resisting recognition wants to use.

But a long list of situations forecloses that jurisdictional challenge regardless of which test would otherwise apply. A judgment cannot be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if the defendant was personally served in the foreign country, voluntarily appeared beyond just protecting seized property or contesting jurisdiction, had agreed in advance to submit to that court's jurisdiction, was domiciled there or organized or headquartered there as a business, maintained a business office there connected to the claim, or operated a vehicle or airplane there giving rise to the claim. This list is not exclusive, either; California courts may recognize other bases for personal jurisdiction beyond the ones this section names as sufficient.

Frequently Asked Questions

What two tests determine whether a foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction?

Whether it had a basis for jurisdiction that would satisfy California's own standards, and whether it had jurisdiction under its own country's law.

Can a defendant challenge jurisdiction after having agreed in advance to submit to that court?

No. A prior agreement to submit to the foreign court's jurisdiction over that subject matter forecloses this ground for nonrecognition.

Does appearing in the foreign proceeding waive a later jurisdictional challenge?

Yes, unless the appearance was only to protect seized or threatened property or to contest the court's jurisdiction in the first place.

Is this list of jurisdictional bases the only way a foreign court can have personal jurisdiction?

No. Section 1717 says the list is not exclusive, and California courts may recognize other sufficient bases as well.

Amendment History

Amended by Stats 2017 ch 168 (AB 905),s 6, eff. 1/1/2018. Amended by Stats 2009 ch 579 (SB 320),s 2, eff. 1/1/2010. Added by Stats 2007 ch 212 (SB 639),s 2, eff. 1/1/2008.

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from the California Legislative Information. Enacted by the California Legislature. Last verified July 29, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: personal jurisdiction foreign judgment recognitionbases for jurisdiction foreign court california