What is a Petition for Declaratory Relief?

A declaratory relief claim is normally used “to obtain a judicial declaration on the rights and duties of the parties under a contract.” (City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co., 4 Cal. App. 3d 160, 170 (1970).) However, declaratory relief is not a tool to redress past wrongs, it operates prospectively to settle controversies before they escalate to a repudiation of obligations, invasion of rights, or the commission of wrongs. (Travers v. Louden, 254 Cal. App. 2d 926, 931 (1967).

“The fundamental basis for declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.” (City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal. 4th 69, 79 (2002).) The object “is to afford a new form of relief where needed and not to furnish a litigant with a second cause of action for the determination of identical issues.” (Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Superior Court, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1617, 1624 (1991).)

Declaratory relief has two elements a party must satisfy: “(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to [the party’s] rights or obligations.” (Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 213 Cal. App. 4th 872, 909 (2013).) “One test of the right to institute proceedings for declaratory judgment is the necessity to present adjudication as a guide for plaintiff’s future conduct in order to preserve his legal rights.” (Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC, 191 Cal. App. 4th 357, 364-365.)

The decision of whether to grant a petition for declaratory relief lies within the discretion of the court and cannot be brought up on appeal except for abuse of discretion. (Girard v. Miller, 214 Cal. App. 2d 266, 277 (1963).) The court may refuse to exercise declaratory relief powers where such relief is not necessary or proper at the time under all of the circumstances. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1061.)

In instances where there is an accrued cause of action for an actual breach of contract or other wrongful act, declaratory relief may be denied. (Osseous Technologies of America, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 4th at 366.) However, “the mere circumstance that another remedy is available is insufficient ground for refusing declaratory relief, and doubts regarding the propriety of an action for declaratory relief…generally are resolved in favor of granting relief.” (Id. at 364.)

Declaratory relief is traditionally used for statutory and contract interpretation. (Von Durjais v. Bd. of Trustees, 83 Cal. App. 3d 687 (1978).) Declaratory relief is also “an appropriate method for obtaining a declaration that a statute or regulation is facially unconstitutional.” (Tejon Real Estate, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 223 Cal. App. 4th 149, 154 (2014).) However, it cannot be used to review an administrative order. (Guilbert v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 93 Cal. App. 3d 233, 244 (1979).)

“The declaratory relief provisions do not empower a court to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree…a party is entitled to avail itself of the complete administrative procedure…until that procedure has been completed, plaintiff has no standing to ask for judicial relief because it has not yet exhausted the remedies provided by the statute.” (Walker v. Munro, 178 Cal. App. 2d 67, 72 (1960).)

Useful Rulings on Petition for Declaratory Relief

Recent Rulings on Petition for Declaratory Relief

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

With the possible exception of the provisions relating to immediate access to the STR units, Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable injury to support their request for preliminary injunction. “‘To qualify for preliminary injunctive relief plaintiffs must show irreparable injury, either existing or threatened.’” (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 447, 453.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Specifically, MaryJane is a plaintiff as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, the Second Cause of Action for Negligence, the Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty, and the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranties. (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Third Cause of Action for Indemnity following the filing of Turner’s Motion.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The Court is persuaded that the status quo should be maintained pending appeal so that any different relief granted by the Court of Appeal is not rendered illusory, and to avoid interfering with those parts of the Permit which may have been successfully implemented by some cities affected by the Permit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South Central District, Compton, the Honorable Maurice Leiter, Judge presiding in Department A, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) N/A Summary of the case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants 5 Star Delivery, Inc. (“5 Star Delivery”), Zaragoza, LAH, Rosalba Patricia Hinojosa (“RPH”) and Does 1-40 for: Breach of Written Contract Money Lent Fraud Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief On October 26, 2018, Zaragoza’s, LAH’s, 5 Star Delivery’s and RPH’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment are set for September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VAGAN AZARYAN VS EXXON MOBILE

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Southeast District, Norwalk, the Honorable Margaret Miller Bernal, Judge presiding in Department F, for further reassignment. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

DANIEL GINZBURG, ET AL. VS 15025 SATICOY STREET, INC., ET AL.

Cotton, Judge presiding in Department A, for further reassignment. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Kim, Judge presiding in Department S27, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

(i.e., Issues Nos. 37 and 38) “A UCL claim must be based on the existence of harm supporting injunctive relief or restitution.” (Esparza v. Safeway, Inc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 42, 53.) “Injunctive relief is appropriate only when there is a threat of continuing misconduct.” (Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 440, 463.) “Ordinarily, injunctive relief is available to prevent threatened injury and is not a remedy designed to right completed wrongs.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) See above Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) See above Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d 822 at 824.) Yes _____ Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

ROGER PHILIPP 19SMUD01621 TENTATIVE DECISION This unlawful detainer action resulted in a judgment for the defendant after the Court granted an oral motion for judgment on the pleadings. In its verified complaint, plaintiff alleged the existence of a lease with an attorneys’ fee clause in favor of the property owner in the event of a default by the tenant. On February 3, 2020, the Court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Ecourt records reflect that on October 23, 2019, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for entry of default against Tissuesco for the following reason: “No POS on file, image is for other defendant.” Both proofs of service filed September 25, 2019 are for Chen. Plaintiff must correct the foregoing deficiency before the court will review the sufficiency of the default prove-up package.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

CASE NO: 19VECV00987 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Dept. T 8:30 a.m. OSC July 30, 2020 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Request for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The request for default judgment by Plaintiff Norguard Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) lacks admissible evidence, specifically the declaration per CCP §585.5 is inadmissible.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

Linfield, Judge presiding in Department 34, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE FRANCES CARLENTINE

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

Kwan filed a first amended cross-complaint against Anthony Sam for declaratory relief. On July 30, 2019, Board of Fire and Police Pension Commissioners filed a request for dismissal as to First American Title Insurance Company. On November 15, 2019, the Court denied First American Title Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHING FU CHANG, ET AL. VS PAN MING LEI, ET AL.

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) No Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOHN PHAM VS HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

HILL, Judge presiding in Department M, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.