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

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

J of the Pomona 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.Plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Janovsky testified that he was mainly concerned with whether Defendant Ace was going to get the racks for its promotion and was merely thinking of things from the perspective of a merchant and not from a legal perspective. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Mr. Janovsky also testified that he was not aware that the request by Defendant JMI for the name change could have affected the receivership. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. MATTHEWS

For general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

The demurrer to the 2nd Cause of Action for Sexual Harassment is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. 3rd Cause of Action: Declaratory Relief To be entitled to declaratory relief, a plaintiff must plead that there is: “(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to [plaintiff's] rights or obligations.” (Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

(JC Form CIV-100.) 9/9/20)_________ See above 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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

No 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

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

(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 14, 2020

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

MATTER OF YVETTE DEROUEN FIGUEROA

Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Memorandum of Costs filed by Patricia Rettig is set for hearing 11-19-2020. 3. Request for Dismissal entered 7-21-2020 as to Petition to Transfer Trust Assets into Special Needs Trust. 4. It appears no underlying petition is on calendar in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, NO WILL, IAEA

File a verified declaration with copy of Will offered for probate attached PrC § 8002. No will attached to the petition as alleged. 3. Have a Notice of Petition to Administer Estate and copy of petition mailed to all beneficiaries. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) 4. File Proof of Publication. PrC § 8120 Note: Per 7-2-2020, court directed original Will to be lodged with the court. Original Will lodged 7-2-2020 is missing from court file.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF KATHRYN NUDELMAN

RE: OSC RE: NAME CHANGE FILED BY KATHRYN NUDELMAN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved. Proposed Order Submitted. No Appearance Required. Note: Decree will be available for pick up at the hearing or after the hearing in Dept. 30. KATHRYN ANDREA NUDELMAN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Unable to review. File is unavailable at this time. Continue to 12-29-20, to be heard with amended petition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO ESTABLISH CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER REAL PPTY

Verified declaration by petitioner to address petition Item # 5.a.(7) or 5.a.(8) (whether decedent is survived by issue of a predeceased child) 2. Order for Probate Form DE-140 GEORGE STANLEY NUNN JR FRANCIS X MOHAN MEREDITH F NUNN

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST ACCOUNT OF TRUSTEE AND PET’N FOR ITS SETTLEMENT

FILED ON 08/13/19 BY KIMBERLY CZIRKELBACH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Note: Residuary Beneficiaries’ Response and Objections filed by American Cancer Society, Inc., Feed the Children, Inc., Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and ALSAC/St. Judge Children’s Research Hospi...

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N ON FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR

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 14.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: THE MARIE CRAM REVOCABLE TRUST

RE: PET'N FOR SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL, ETC. FILED ON 01/10/20 BY TARA MONTOYA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances Notes: Ex Parte Order filed 1-8-20 appointed Professional Fiduciary Elizabeth Soloway as temporary, successor trustee, and suspended Cynthia Singer, David Cram and petitioner Tara Montoya. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO CONFIRM VALIDITY OF TRUST, SCSR T'SEE, ASSETS, TRANSFER

Have a Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court. 3. Submit a proposed Order BETTY RAY CONNER REVOCABLE LIV LEROY CURRIE JR FILED ON 07/09/20 BY DIANE LARRABEE PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required Note: Original Will lodged 7-9-2020 is missing from court file.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF CZESLAW KENTZER

Dates listed in petition are incorrect. PrC § 10900; CRC § 7.403 2. Declaration addressing creditor claim filed by Franchise Tax Board on 6-15-2020 for $7,385.63. PrC § 10900; CRC § 7.403. 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify loss on sale of 2001 Chevrolet Silverado. Loss is $3,700.00; carry value is $5,100.00, as listed on I&A. 4. Verified declaration by petitioner to show calculation of statutory fee base as required by CRC § 7.705.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE JOSEPH LEE REVOCABLE TRUST

RE: PET'N FOR SETTLEMENT ON FIRST ACCOUNT FILED ON 08/11/17 BY ELIZABETH SOLOWAY PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line # 1 -- Need appearances to report status DOUGLAS C LEE JOHN A HARTOG ELIZABETH SOLOWAY MICHAEL J.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DIST ON WVR OF ACCT, FOR COMMISSIONS, FEES AND

COSTS FILED ON 05/12/20 BY ALICIA RUCOBO PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Proposed Order ALICIA RUCOBO MATTHEW S TOTH PETER T AVILA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order CYNTHIA CRAM SINGER ...

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • 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 gather your results.