Most California judgment creditors who domesticate an out-of-state judgment are told the same thing: file your application, serve the notice of entry on the debtor, and then wait thirty days before you can levy, garnish, or record anything. That is the default rule under Code of Civil Procedure § 1710.45(a), but it is not the only rule. Buried in subdivisions (b) and (c) of the same statute are two powerful carve-outs that let a creditor begin enforcement immediately — no service on the debtor, no thirty-day stay, no warning. Neither requires a separate ex parte motion, a hearing, or a noticed appearance. Both are checkboxes on the same Judicial Council form we already file to domesticate the judgment.
We use these exceptions often, and most creditors have no idea they exist. If your debtor lives outside California, is an unregistered out-of-state business, or is about to move money or property beyond your reach, there is usually no reason to wait. Here is how it works.
One note on scope before diving in. This post is specifically about sister-state money judgments — judgments from the courts of other U.S. states, governed by the Sister State Money-Judgments Act at CCP §§ 1710.10–1710.65. Parallel but distinct procedures apply to federal judgments registered in California under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, to out-of-state family law orders under UIFSA and the Family Code, and to tribal court judgments under the Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment Act. The § 1710.45 exceptions discussed below do not apply in those parallel frameworks — so if your judgment is from a federal court, a foreign state’s family court, or a tribal court, start with the guide for that track.
The default rule: thirty days, then enforce
Before getting to the exceptions, it helps to understand what you are escaping from. Under CCP § 1710.45(a), after a California court enters a sister-state judgment based on your Form EJ-105 application, you must serve the debtor with the Notice of Entry of Sister-State Judgment in the same manner as a summons and complaint, file proof of service, and then wait thirty days from the date of service before a writ of execution can issue or any other enforcement remedy can be pursued. That window exists so the debtor has a fair chance to file a motion to vacate the California judgment under CCP § 1710.40.
During those thirty days, a sophisticated debtor with liquid assets and notice of what is coming can do a great deal of damage. We have seen bank accounts drained, real estate transferred, and vehicles retitled in that window. The two exceptions below exist for exactly that reason.
Exception #1: The non-resident or non-registered debtor under § 1710.45(b)
Subdivision (b) is the quiet, underused exception, and it is automatic. CCP § 1710.45(b) provides that a writ of execution may issue, or other enforcement may be sought, before service of the notice of entry of judgment if the debtor is an individual who does not reside in California, a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in California under Chapter 21 of the Corporations Code, or a foreign partnership that has not filed a statement under Corporations Code § 15700 designating an agent for service of process. No court hearing. No judicial review. No affidavit of exigency. No “great or irreparable injury” showing. If the debtor fits one of these three categories, we simply check box 6(a) on Form EJ-105 — “Under CCP 1710.45(b)” — and the clerk is authorized to issue the writ the day the judgment is entered. It is the cleanest immediate-enforcement tool in the statute.
The classic scenario is an out-of-state individual who owns California assets. An Oregon judgment against an Oregon resident who owns a rental house in San Diego County. We domesticate the judgment here, check the 1710.45(b) box, and record an abstract of judgment against the property on day one. The debtor will still get notice eventually — the clerk serves the notice of entry by mail under CCP § 1710.30 — but the lien is already on title, and we can start determining senior lien balances to evaluate equity while the debtor’s thirty-day motion-to-vacate clock runs.
The same logic applies to unregistered foreign corporations. A Delaware or Nevada corporation that has never filed a Statement and Designation by Foreign Corporation with the California Secretary of State is not “qualified to do business” under Corporations Code § 2105. We confirm that status in about ninety seconds on the Secretary of State’s business search portal. If the entity does not appear as a registered foreign corporation, subdivision (b)(2) applies and we move straight to a bank levy or whatever other remedy fits the asset. Foreign partnerships that have not designated an agent under Corporations Code § 15700 work the same way.
One wrinkle the statute does not cleanly address: foreign LLCs. The text of § 1710.45(b) predates California’s modern LLC code and refers literally to corporations and partnerships. In Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Insurance Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, the Second District confirmed that a foreign LLC acting as a judgment creditor does not have to qualify to do business in California to domesticate a sister-state judgment, because collecting a debt is not “transacting intrastate business.” That helps creditors on the incoming side, but it leaves an unregistered foreign LLC on the debtor side in a gray zone under the literal text of (b)(2). When the debtor is a foreign LLC, we use the subdivision (c) route described below rather than rely on the “foreign corporation” label.
Subdivision (b) is automatic, but it is not a free pass. The debtor still gets a thirty-day motion-to-vacate clock — it just runs from the date the clerk mails the notice under CCP § 1710.30 rather than from personal service. When the writ produces a quick levy, expect the debtor to appear and move to vacate, and make sure the underlying sister-state judgment is clean: proper jurisdiction, valid service in the original action, no pending appeal, and no prior California domestication.
One practical wrinkle at the courthouse: most creditors have never heard of these subsections, and most clerks rarely see a sister-state filing that asks for an immediate writ or abstract. The default clerk workflow is to enter the judgment and wait for the thirty-day stay to run. If we do not flag the request, the writ sits in a queue. On electronic filings, we add a short note to the clerk in the filing-portal comments — something to the effect of “Immediate issuance requested under CCP § 1710.45(b); see item 6(a) of EJ-105 — please issue writ of execution / abstract of judgment concurrently with entry of judgment” — and we do the same thing for (c) requests, pointing the clerk to item 6(b). It takes thirty seconds and it is the difference between a writ that issues the same day and a writ that issues after a phone call, an email, and a week of wasted time.
Exception #2: The exigent-circumstances request under § 1710.45(c)
Where subdivision (b) is automatic, subdivision (c) requires judicial review. It is the tool for the opposite fact pattern — a debtor who does live in California and is a registered entity, but where waiting thirty days would cause real harm. CCP § 1710.45(c) authorizes the court to order immediate issuance of a writ or other enforcement before any notice is served on the debtor, where the creditor shows that “great or irreparable injury would result to the judgment creditor if issuance of the writ or enforcement by other means were delayed.”
The key procedural point: this is not a separate ex parte application. There is no noticed motion, no ex parte packet under California Rules of Court 3.1200, no hearing. The request is made on the EJ-105 itself. We check box 6(b) — “A court order is requested under CCP 1710.45(c)” — and set out the facts showing great or irreparable injury on the form or in attachment 6b. The application is executed under oath, which supplies the sworn factual basis for the order. Along with the EJ-105 we file the authenticated sister-state judgment and a clear statement of the specific writ or abstract we want issued — typically a writ of execution for levy on an identified bank account at a specific branch, or an abstract of judgment to record against a specific parcel. A judge reviews the application in chambers and either signs the order at the bottom of the form or denies it. That is the entire filing.
Because subdivision (c) requires judicial review, the facts have to earn it. The strongest showing we see is a piece of the debtor’s real property listed for sale on the MLS — an active listing, a list price, and in a hot market the realistic possibility of a pending offer or open escrow inside the thirty-day window. That is concrete, documented, and time-stamped: a printout of the MLS listing page attached to the application tells the judge everything they need to know. Other strong fact patterns include a brokerage account the debtor is visibly liquidating, a business debtor in the process of dissolving or winding up and transferring assets to an insider, or credible evidence that the debtor is moving assets out of the country. What does not work is generality — “the debtor might dissipate assets” without specific facts, dollar amounts, or documents is going to get denied.
Superior Court judges grant § 1710.45(c) requests when the showing is specific and recent (dates, dollar amounts, document references), the injury is real and imminent rather than speculative, the underlying sister-state judgment is facially valid, and the requested remedy is proportional to the harm — a writ against a single identified bank account or an abstract against a specific parcel, not a roving license to levy anywhere in the state. Overreach is the fastest way to lose one of these. We keep the request narrow and the facts surgical.
The same clerk-flagging issue that comes up with (b) applies here too — maybe more so. A (c) filing needs judicial review before the writ issues, and if the clerk does not route the EJ-105 to a judge for that review, nothing moves. We make that explicit in the e-filing comments: “Court order requested under CCP § 1710.45(c); see item 6(b) and attachment 6b — please route to judicial officer for review of immediate enforcement request.” Sister-state domestication is a small corner of the clerk’s world, and requests under (b) and (c) are an even smaller corner. A one-line note puts the filing on the right track from the start.
How the two exceptions relate
Subdivision (b) and subdivision (c) do different jobs and should be used for different cases. Subdivision (b) is a categorical rule about who the debtor is — if the debtor falls into one of the three listed categories, no exigency showing is required and no judge reviews the request. The clerk issues the writ. Subdivision (c) is a fact-driven rule about what is happening — the debtor does not fit the (b) categories, but the creditor can show great or irreparable injury, and the judge compresses the timeline.
We do not stack the two against the same debtor. If a debtor is a non-resident individual, that is a (b) case and there is nothing to gain by adding a (c) showing. If a debtor is a California resident with a house on the MLS, that is a (c) case and (b) does not apply. The one place both appear on the same EJ-105 is when there are multiple debtors on the judgment — for example, a California LLC and its out-of-state managing member. In that scenario we invoke (b) for the non-resident individual and (c), with its own sworn facts, for the California entity. Different debtors, different subdivisions, one form.
Neither exception shortens the debtor’s substantive rights. The debtor can still move to vacate the California judgment under CCP § 1710.40 within thirty days of service, and the court can still stay enforcement under CCP § 1710.50 if there is an appeal pending in the sister state or other equitable grounds exist. What the exceptions change is the timing of enforcement — and in collection work, timing is usually everything.
Practical considerations before filing
A few things we confirm before filing under either (b) or (c). The sister-state judgment has to be an authenticated exemplified copy, not just certified — that means the clerk’s seal, the judge’s certificate, and the clerk’s certification of the judge’s authority. The judgment has to be final: no pending post-trial motions, no pending appeal, no active stay of enforcement in the sister state. The statute of limitations has to line up on both sides: California gives a ten-year enforcement period under CCP § 683.020 that can be renewed, and the judgment also has to remain enforceable in the sister state under its law. A second EJ-105 on the same sister-state judgment is barred, so prior domestication ends the analysis. Venue is the county where the debtor resides, or any county if the debtor is outside California (CCP § 1710.20(b)). And the asset plan has to exist before the filing, not after — an immediate writ is only as useful as the levy that follows it, and by the time we invoke § 1710.45(b) or (c), we already know which bank, which property, which vehicle, and the enforcement strategy that comes after.
The window of opportunity
With a sister-state judgment and a debtor who owns assets in California, the first thirty days after domestication are where the entire recovery is usually won or lost. If there is any chance the debtor is a non-resident, an unregistered out-of-state entity, or about to move assets, the analysis under CCP § 1710.45(b) and (c) needs to happen before the EJ-105 is filed — once the default thirty-day clock starts, you cannot unring the bell.
Our firm offers a free judgment review for creditors considering domestication and enforcement in California. Call 858-705-0346 or request a free judgment review and we will look at the file.
This article is general information about California judgment enforcement procedure and is not legal advice for any particular case. Statutes cited as of the date of publication; always confirm current text on the California Legislative Information site.
