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

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

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/Form CIV-105. (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

    Feb 01, 2021

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, 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

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, 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. N/A--UD Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Plaintiff’s request for $300,000.00 in lost profit damages is unsupported. ANALYSIS Yes (11/9/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Summary Judgment will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Upon that review, it appears that this Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a judgment of more than $800,000 for the following reasons: The First Amended Cross-Complaint ("FACC") states in its prayer for relief that it seeks "actual damages in excess of $800,000" and "actual damages that continue to accrue to be proven at trial" along with prejudgment interests, and other costs and fees.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A 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

    Dec 18, 2020

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

E of the Glendale Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court. This minute order serves as the order of the Court.PLAINTIFF SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS TOTAL BODY EXPERTS LLC, ET AL.

The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KOEN WOO KIM VS CENTRAL FITNESS, LP, ET AL.

The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF AMENDED FIRST ACCT & RPT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE,

Need petition (may be ex parte) showing good cause for allowing late election, and order. Otherwise you will need amended petition eliminating spouse’s portion and a recalculation of statutory fees. Proposed election must comply with LR 7.305. See PrC §§ 13500, 13501, 13502 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify calculation of statutory fees. It appears amount is rounded up. 4.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE LLOYD W HARRICH TRUST

RE: RPT OF SUC T'TEE PET’N FOR INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 02/19/19 BY GABRIELA B ODELL PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation Note: Response filed by Monica Harrich-Griswold and Jessica Harrich 9-30-19.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

FILED ON 10/16/19 BY MONICA L HARRICH-GRISWOLD, JESSICA J HARRICH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, ...

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL ACCT & RPT OF ADMNTR & PET’N FOR SETTLEMENT & FNL DIST

Declaration addressing creditor claim filed by Far Hills MHP on 8-2-19 for $5,000.00. PrC § 10900; CRC § 7.403. 2. Proposed Order JAMES A WALTERS DANIEL T. QUANE, ESQ. RALPH EDWIN WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in Vol. 3. Need: 1. Appearances to report status, including 9-8-2020 order to meet and confer 2. Proposed Order 3. Note: Objection filed by Janice Bowerman 2-14-20.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS REGARDING ACCOUNTING OBJECTION

FILED ON 11/06/19 BY MONICA L HARRICH-GRISWOLD, JESSICA J HARRICH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, ...

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE BOWERMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST

Proposed Order Note: Related matter is set for 2-9-2021. BOWMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST RHONDA BRINK RONALD B. BASS TERESA COLEMAN KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS TERESA L COLEMAN TRACY S REGLI PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Proof of Publication. PrC § 8120 2. Proof of mailing Notice of Petition to Administer Estate and copy of petition to all heirs and beneficiaries. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) 3.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SHAFIQ SIDIQI VS GAYANE BALABANYAN

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT LUIS ALFONSO, Plaintiff, vs. MIRIAM RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: 19STLC06257 ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: December 10, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT LUIS ALFONSO, Plaintiff, vs. MIRIAM RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: 19STLC06257 ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: December 10, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

Order Appointing Guardian of Minor Form GC-240 (revised 7-1-16) Note: Request for Interpreter (Spanish) filed 11-4-2020. MIRIAM ETELVINA AGUILAR MIRAND PEGGY JOANNE BRISTOL PEGGY J BRISTOL YESLI YANETH VASQUEZ GONZALEZ PEGGY J BRISTOL PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Resolution of Line # 7.A. 2. Verified declaration by petitioner to specify any state laws upon which you base the grounds for your petition and allegations supporting your findings. 3.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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 load this page.