§ 410.10.Generally

Section 410.10 does something unusual for a jurisdictional statute: instead of listing the specific situations in which a California court can hear a case against an out-of-state defendant, it grants the maximum jurisdiction the Constitution allows. A California court may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. There is no separate list of qualifying contacts, transactions, or acts to check against — the only ceiling is due process itself.

That makes the real analysis under this section a constitutional one. Due process allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who has enough connection to the state that requiring them to defend a lawsuit here does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Courts distinguish between general jurisdiction, which lets a court hear any claim against a defendant so at home in the state that it is subject to suit on unrelated matters, and specific jurisdiction, which reaches only claims arising from the defendant’s own contacts with California. Section 410.10 does not use either term, but both concepts operate as the practical boundary on the authority the section grants.

Because the statute defers entirely to the constitutional limit, disputes over California jurisdiction rarely turn on the text of § 410.10 itself. They turn on whether the defendant’s contacts with California — a contract signed here, a product sold here, an office maintained here — are enough to satisfy due process. A defendant who believes those contacts fall short challenges jurisdiction by a motion to quash service under § 418.10, rather than by arguing about the wording of this section.