Judgmentcreditor plaintiffs generally do not throw good money after bad by going around seeking to enforce their foreign judgments in jurisdictions in which their judgment debtors do not have assets.
The first obvious problem is that for the courts of the DAPT state to enter a Declaratory Judgment against the Creditor, the DAPT state must have personal jurisdiction over the creditor.
In such a case, it is clear that the courts of the non-DAPT state can allow the Creditor to enforce the judgment against that property, regardless of whether it is held in a DAPT in a DAPT state.
However, a Debtor could always move to a DAPT state before the creditor begins to enforce the judgment, and in that event the laws of the DAPT state would likely apply.
Unless the Creditor was engaged in some significant action in Alaska more than just going up there occasionally to do some fishing Alaska cannot assert personal jurisdiction over the Creditor such that the Declaratory Judgment would have to be respected by California.
Instead, the creditor can just linger, letting interest grow on the judgment, and look for other ways to get at the moneys or at least keep the debtor from getting the moneys so as to put as much pressure on the debtor.