A business owner or individual may first learn of a lawsuit in another country when a California complaint arrives seeking recognition of a judgment already entered abroad. The foreign case may have proceeded by default because papers went to an old address, arrived in an unfamiliar language, or never reached the defendant.
That history matters. But the word “default,” by itself, does not determine whether California will recognize the judgment.
Short answer: California may refuse, and in some circumstances must refuse, to recognize a foreign-country default judgment. Potential grounds include lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction, inadequate notice, qualifying fraud, and serious due-process defects. A default judgment is not automatically unenforceable, however. Once the creditor establishes that the judgment falls within California’s recognition statute, the party opposing recognition generally bears the burden of proving a statutory defense.
First Identify the Kind of Judgment
California’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act applies principally to qualifying judgments entered by courts outside the United States. The judgment must grant or deny recovery of money and be final, conclusive, and enforceable in the country where it was entered.
The Act generally does not apply to judgments for taxes, fines or other penalties, or domestic-relations relief. A judgment from another U.S. state is governed by a different full-faith-and-credit framework. A foreign order involving title to California real property may also present issues beyond the foreign-country money-judgment statute.
The judgment creditor has the initial burden of establishing that the judgment falls within the Act. That generally requires evidence that the judgment is a qualifying money judgment and is final, conclusive, and enforceable under the law of the rendering country.
Default Is Not a Separate Defense
California law does not identify entry by default as an independent ground for refusing recognition.
A foreign court may enter a valid judgment when a properly notified defendant chooses not to participate. Conversely, a judgment may be vulnerable even after the defendant appeared if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction or the proceeding was fundamentally unfair.
The important questions are therefore:
- Why did the defendant not defend?
- Did the foreign court have authority over the defendant and the dispute?
- How and where was notice attempted?
- Did the defendant have enough information and time to respond?
- Did fraud or another procedural defect prevent a meaningful opportunity to be heard?
1. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1716(b), a California court must refuse recognition if the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Section 1717 provides that personal jurisdiction may be insufficient under California jurisdictional standards or under the law of the foreign country. The analysis is highly dependent on the record.
Facts that may support jurisdiction include:
- personal service while the defendant was present in the foreign country;
- a voluntary appearance in the foreign proceeding;
- a pre-dispute agreement consenting to the foreign court’s jurisdiction;
- domicile in the foreign country;
- incorporation or a principal place of business there;
- a qualifying business office connected to the dispute; or
- ownership or operation of a vehicle or aircraft involved in the underlying claim.
The statutory list is not exclusive. Contract provisions, the defendant’s contacts with the country, and the foreign procedural record should all be examined.
A Warning About Appearing After Default
A defendant seeking to preserve a personal-jurisdiction defense should obtain coordinated advice before asking the foreign court to vacate, review, or modify the judgment.
California law protects an appearance limited to contesting jurisdiction or protecting property that has been seized or threatened with seizure. A broader appearance may waive the jurisdictional defense.
In Sicre de Fontbrune v. Wofsy (9th Cir. 2022) 39 F.4th 1214, the Ninth Circuit held that a postjudgment effort to set aside a French judgment constituted a voluntary appearance because the defendant raised issues outside the statutory exceptions. The court therefore rejected his personal-jurisdiction defense.
2. Inadequate Notice
Under the current version of section 1716(c)(1), a California court generally must refuse recognition if the defendant did not receive notice of the foreign proceeding in sufficient time to defend. Section 1716(c)(2), however, permits recognition if the creditor proves a good reason that outweighs that ground for nonrecognition.
In a default case, notice is often the central factual dispute. Relevant evidence may include:
- service certificates and affidavits;
- postal and courier records;
- signed receipts and returned envelopes;
- emails and messaging-app communications;
- address provisions in contracts;
- evidence of where the defendant lived or conducted business;
- the documents and translations actually delivered; and
- testimony concerning what the defendant received and understood.
Actual receipt is important evidence, but it is not always the only question.
In AO Alpha-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 189, registered mail sent to the Moscow address designated in a surety agreement was considered reasonably calculated to provide notice. The defendant had left Russia without providing the contractually required address update. Due process did not require proof that he personally read the papers.
Foreign-Language Papers May Create a Notice Problem
Julen v. Larson (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 325 illustrates a different result. A California resident received certified-mail correspondence from a Swiss consulate containing legal documents written in German. The English cover letters did not explain the legal significance of the papers, and there was no evidence that the recipient understood German or otherwise knew that a Swiss lawsuit was pending. The court found the notice inadequate.
Julen does not establish that every foreign pleading must always be translated in full. Its practical lesson is that notice must be informative. The materials should communicate, in a reasonably understandable way:
- that a legal proceeding is pending;
- where it is pending;
- what the dispute concerns;
- when a response is required; and
- what may happen if the defendant does not respond.
International service may also be governed by the law of the rendering country, the law of the place of service, and a treaty such as the Hague Service Convention. The actual service path must be examined rather than evaluated only under ordinary California service rules.
3. Fraud That Prevented a Fair Opportunity to Defend
Recognition may be refused when the judgment was obtained through fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case.
The connection between the fraud and the lost opportunity to defend is important. It ordinarily is not enough to argue that the foreign plaintiff presented inaccurate evidence or made a false merits argument if the defendant had a fair opportunity to discover and challenge it in the foreign proceeding.
A stronger defense may exist when deception:
- concealed the lawsuit;
- interfered with service;
- misled the defendant about whether a response was necessary;
- prevented access to material evidence; or
- otherwise kept the defendant from presenting the case.
In Sicre de Fontbrune, the Ninth Circuit explained that the inquiry included whether the alleged fraud reasonably should have been detected during the foreign proceeding. The question was not simply whether the foreign judgment might be incorrect, but whether fraud deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to litigate.
4. Systemic or Case-Specific Due-Process Defects
The Act recognizes two different due-process defenses.
First, under section 1716(b), California must refuse recognition if the foreign judicial system as a whole does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process.
Second, section 1716(c)(1) addresses whether the particular proceeding that produced the judgment was incompatible with due process. This ground is subject to the limited balancing provision in section 1716(c)(2).
Evidence criticizing an entire foreign judicial system is different from evidence showing what happened in one case. Procedural differences alone do not establish a due-process violation. California does not require a foreign court to use identical pleading, discovery, evidence, or hearing procedures.
The central question is whether the process, considered as a whole, supplied impartial adjudication and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
5. Other Statutory Grounds
Depending on the evidence, recognition may also be contested because:
- the foreign court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction;
- the judgment or underlying claim is repugnant to a fundamental public policy of California or the United States;
- the proceeding violated an agreement requiring arbitration or litigation in another forum;
- jurisdiction rested only on personal service and the foreign forum was seriously inconvenient;
- the circumstances create substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court concerning that judgment;
- the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment; or
- federal law bars recognition of a qualifying foreign defamation judgment.
Public-policy defenses are generally construed narrowly. A recognition proceeding is not an appeal from the foreign court. Disagreement with the foreign law, reasoning, or remedy is usually insufficient unless a fundamental public policy is implicated.
Who Has the Burden of Proof?
The creditor must first establish that the foreign judgment is covered by the Act. Once that showing is made, the party resisting recognition bears the burden of proving a statutory ground for nonrecognition.
The current statute treats the defenses in section 1716(b) differently from those in section 1716(c)(1).
The court must refuse recognition if a defense under section 1716(b) is established. For a ground under section 1716(c)(1), section 1716(c)(2) permits the creditor to establish a good reason that outweighs the ground for nonrecognition.
That distinction makes the statutory classification and evidentiary record important.
How Recognition Is Litigated in California
A foreign-country judgment does not automatically become a California judgment merely because it is filed or recorded.
When recognition is sought as an original matter, the creditor generally files a California civil action. In an existing case, recognition may be raised through a counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense.
If recognized, the judgment becomes conclusive between the parties and enforceable like a California judgment to the extent it grants or denies recovery of money.
A pending or planned foreign appeal may support a stay of the California proceeding. An action for recognition generally must be filed by the earlier of:
- the period during which the judgment remains effective in the foreign country; or
- ten years after the judgment became effective there.
Evidence to Preserve
A defendant served with a California recognition action should preserve the complete foreign record and reconstruct the chronology promptly. Relevant materials may include:
- the foreign complaint, summons, judgment, docket, and default papers;
- any certificate addressing finality or enforceability;
- all versions and translations of the papers allegedly served;
- postal records, receipts, tracking data, envelopes, emails, and messages;
- evidence of residence, travel, business locations, and address changes;
- contracts containing notice, forum-selection, arbitration, or jurisdiction provisions;
- communications with the creditor, counsel, process servers, consular officials, or the foreign court; and
- records of any appeal, review, set-aside request, or participation after judgment.
Foreign-law issues may require qualified foreign counsel or an expert to explain jurisdiction, service, finality, and the legal effect of the foreign docket. Certified translations may also be necessary.
Practical Takeaway
California can refuse to recognize a foreign default judgment, but the outcome does not turn on the default label alone. A successful opposition generally requires a precise statutory defense supported by the foreign docket, service record, governing foreign law, and reliable chronology.
A defendant should not ignore the California proceeding. Doing so can turn one default into another. A creditor, meanwhile, should be prepared to prove that the judgment is final, conclusive, enforceable, and supported by an adequate jurisdictional and service record.
Legal Authorities and Public Resources
- California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1713–1725
- AO Alpha-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 189
- Julen v. Larson (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 325
- Sicre de Fontbrune v. Wofsy (9th Cir. 2022) 39 F.4th 1214
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306
- Manco Contracting Co. v. Bezdikian (2008) 45 Cal.4th 192
Related practice areas: Civil Litigation · Cross-Border Matters