Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
107 California opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2026 56 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Cotati v. Cashmangreen2 sentences2013The declaratory relief claim arises from a contract dispute; it does not arise from actions taken by [the defendant] in furtherance of his constitutional rights.” (Id. at p. 1309; see City of Cotati v. Cashman, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 80 [action for declaratory relief was based on controversy regarding constitutionality of local ordinance, not on the filing of another action seeking contrary declaration].) In the present case, plaintiff’s claim is not for declaratory relief to determine the disputed meaning of the settlement agreement but for damages for having allegedly breached the agreement 2011(Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 72.) In ruling on the owners’ anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court found that the city’s state lawsuit arose from the owners’ filing of the earlier federal court action, and struck the city’s declaratory relief claim. | 4 | 5 |
Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation District Employee Pension Plangreen2 sentences2026(Compare Warren v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 678, 684 [a declaratory relief cause of action can be appropriate where “a relationship between the parties continues so that a declaration may guide their future conduct”].) If plaintiff has a fully matured cause of action he “must seek the remedy of damages, and not pursue a declaratory relief claim.” (Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation Dist. Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497 .) The cause of action for declaratory relief therefore is legally insufficient. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) 12 IV. 2024Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497 [“Where, as here, a party has a fully matured cause of action for money, the party must seek the remedy of damages, and not pursue a declaratory relief claim.”].) The complaint alleges the Petrosian defendants, aided by the Buchalter defendants, embezzled money from the Corporation and, after the April 30, 2020 termination of the relationship, used the management services agreements to exclude Williams and take over the practice. | 3 | 5 |
Allen v. City of Sacramentogreen2 sentences2022(Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 53-54 [demurrer is proper when the plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to support a statutory claim and the declaratory relief claim is derivative of the statutory claim].) 14 On April 5, 2021, IEHP filed a request for judicial notice of (1) a Medi-Cal provider agreement; (2) a U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Claim Form (CMS-1500 Form); (3) an official department compliance statement for payment of noncontracted provider claims; (4) the department’s March 11, 2015 decision regarding amendment or repeal of regulation 2022(Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 53-54 [demurrer is proper when the plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to support a statutory claim and the declaratory relief claim is derivative of the statutory claim].) 14 On April 5, 2021, IEHP filed a request for judicial notice of (1) a Medi-Cal provider agreement; (2) a U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Claim Form (CMS-1500 Form); (3) an official department compliance statement for payment of noncontracted provider claims; (4) the department’s March 11, 2015 decision regarding amendment or repeal of regulation | 3 | 3 |
Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.red2 sentences2016(Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 513 .) The plaintiff did not dispute that her loan could be assigned or that she had defaulted on it and remained in arrears. {Id. at p. 514.) Even if one of the assignments of the note and deed of trust was improper in some respect, the appellate court reasoned, “Jenkins is not the victim of such invalid transfer[] because her obligations under the note remained unchanged. 2015(Market Lofts Community Assn. v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLC (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 924, 931 ; 20 Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 513 .) “In order for a party to pursue an action for declaratory relief, the ‘“actual, present controversy must be pleaded specifically . . . .”’ [Citation.] Thus, a claim must provide specific facts, as opposed to conclusions of law, which show a ‘“controversy of concrete actuality.”’ [Citation.]” (Jenkins, at pp. 513-514, original italics.) The party asserting the claim must be a party interested in the alleged controversy. | 2 | 4 |
Ochs v. PacifiCare of Californiagreen2 sentences2021(Id. at p. 800.) For support, the court cited only Ochs v. PacifiCare of California (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 794 (Ochs). 2021(Id. at p. 800.) For support, the court cited only Ochs v. PacifiCare of California (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 794 (Ochs). | 2 | 3 |
Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.green2 sentences2015The declaratory relief claim also contains a broad allegation that there is a present controversy whether the “Assignment, Substitution of Trustee, Notice of Default, and Notice of Sale are invalid and void and do not comply with law.” The trial court sustained the demurrer to the declaratory relief action based on Gomes, which held that there is no declaratory relief action to determine an entity’s authority to initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure because the “recognition of the right to bring a lawsuit to determine a nominee’s authorization to proceed with foreclosure on behalf of the notehold 2015(Gomes, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1156 .) Indeed, if the generic assertion made here were enough, particularly in the face of the record evidence, the Gomes “exception” would swallow the rule, and the non-judicial foreclosure process would effectively be transmuted into a judicial one.8 For these reasons, the Satos’ declaratory relief claim was properly dismissed. | 2 | 3 |
Robertson v. Saadatgreen2 sentences2021(See Robertson v. Saadat (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 630 , 639 [“We are not bound by the trial court’s reasoning and may affirm the judgment if correct on any theory.”].) The proper course is to modify the judgment to reflect a declaration adverse to the Darwish family and affirm. “ ‘ “ ‘The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.’ ” [Citations.] The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 appears to allow for an extremely broad scope of an action for declaratory relief: “Any person interested under a written instrume 2021(See Robertson v. Saadat (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 630 , 639 [“We are not bound by the trial court’s reasoning and may affirm the judgment if correct on any theory.”].) The proper course is to modify the judgment to reflect a declaration adverse to the Darwish family and affirm. “ ‘ “ ‘The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.’ ” [Citations.] The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 appears to allow for an extremely broad scope of an action for declaratory relief: “Any person interested under a written instrume | 2 | 2 |
| Jackson v. Teachers Insurancegreen | 2 | 2 |
Wilson & Wilson v. City Councilgreen2 sentences2026(Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 ; Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546 .) An actual controversy must relate to the legal rights and duties of the parties, and not extend to potential controversies that are conjectural, anticipated to occur in the future, or constitute an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion from the court. 2024“To qualify for declaratory relief, [a party must] demonstrate its action present[s] two essential elements: ‘(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to [the party’s] rights or obligations.’ ” (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1582 .) A trial court may dismiss a declaratory relief claim at the demurrer stage where it is “ ‘wholly derivative’ ” of a deficient cause of action. | 1 | 6 |
Kachlon v. Markowitzgreen2 sentences2026In Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316 , the Court of Appeal affirmed an attorneys’ fee award under Civil Code section 1717, finding causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief and to quiet title were “ ‘action[s] on a contract,’ ” even though “the remedy sought . . . was equitable.” (Id. at pp. 346-348.) The declaratory relief claim “sought a declaration that [an underlying] promissory note 13 must be cancelled because it had been paid in full, and that [a related] deed of trust must be reconveyed because the foreclosure violated the terms of the deed of trust.” (Id. at 2026In Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, the Court of Appeal affirmed an attorneys’ fee award under Civil Code section 1717, finding causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief and to quiet title were “ ‘action[s] on a contract,’ ” even though “the remedy sought . . . was equitable.” (Id. at pp. 346-348.) The declaratory relief claim “sought a declaration that [an underlying] promissory note 13 must be cancelled because it had been paid in full, and that [a related] deed of trust must be reconveyed because the foreclosure violated the terms of the deed of trust.” (Id. at | 1 | 4 |
Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.green2 sentences2024Resolution of that controversy would have actual, “practical consequences.” (Sprint, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 648 .) In sum, the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. 2016(Osseous, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 360 ; Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 639 (Meyer); Baldwin v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 393 , 407–408 (Baldwin).) “Declaratory relief operates prospectively to declare future rights, rather than to redress past wrongs. [Citation.] Where, as here, a party has a fully matured cause of action for money, the party must seek the remedy of damages, and not pursue a declaratory relief claim.” (Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation Dist. | 1 | 3 |
Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLCgreen2 sentences2023(Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1552 [de novo standard of review for demurrer rulings].) A. Successive Demurrers As she did below, Herron argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide Feast’s second demurrer to the declaratory relief claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (b), which states: “A party demurring to a pleading that has been amended after a demurrer to an earlier version of the pleading was sustained shall not demur to any portion of the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer on grounds that could have been raise 2015A. Standard of Review "In reviewing a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, we decide de novo whether the complaint states facts sufficient to state a cause of action." (Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1552 .) "We treat the demurrer as admitting all facts properly pleaded, but we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law." (Ibid.) We may also consider documents 7 attached to the complaint and matters subject to judicial notice.3 (Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 390, 400 .) "A rev | 1 | 3 |
Steinberg v. Chianggreen2 sentences2022(Steinberg v. Chiang (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 338, 343 .) Here, the trial court sustained Ascentium’s demurrer on the ground that cross-complainants’ cause of action “does not allege an actual controversy with Ascentium because it is based on past events, not on a current controversy, and/or appears to set forth alleged defenses to Plaintiff Alliance Funding Group’s claims, rather than proper subjects of a declaratory relief claim.” Accordingly, we review the trial court’s determination that cross-complainants’ cause of action “does not allege an actual controversy with Ascentium” de novo, and t 2018Proc., § 1061 )." *931 Steinberg , at p. 343, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 ; In re Tobacco Cases II , at p. 804, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 881 .) This is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion "except in the extreme circumstances where relief is 'entirely appropriate' such that a trial court would abuse its discretion in denying relief ... or where relief would never be necessary or proper." ( Steinberg , at p. 343, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 .) In the proceedings below, neither the parties nor the trial court distinguished between these two prongs of the declaratory relief analysis. | 1 | 2 |
Babb v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2007(Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal.3d 841, 848 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 179 , 479 P.2d 379 ].) Where, as here, a party has a fully matured cause of action for money, the party must seek the remedy of damages, and not pursue a declaratory relief claim. 2007(Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal.3d 841, 848 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 179 , 479 P.2d 379 ].) Where, as here, a party has a fully matured cause of action for money, the party must seek the remedy of damages, and not pursue a declaratory relief claim. | 1 | 2 |
Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLCgreen2 sentences2016(Osseous, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 360 ; Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 639 (Meyer); Baldwin v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 393 , 407–408 (Baldwin).) “Declaratory relief operates prospectively to declare future rights, rather than to redress past wrongs. [Citation.] Where, as here, a party has a fully matured cause of action for money, the party must seek the remedy of damages, and not pursue a declaratory relief claim.” (Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation Dist. 2015Our Supreme Court has held: “‘“The purpose of a declaratory judgment is to ‘serve some practical end in quieting or stabilizing an uncertain or disputed jural relation.’” [Citation.] “Another purpose is to liquidate doubts with respect 11 to uncertainties or controversies which might otherwise result in subsequent litigation [citation].” [Citation.]’” (Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 647 ; accord, Osseous Technologies of American, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 357, 364 .) We defer to the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by s | 1 | 2 |
International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Palo Altogreen2 sentences1993(International Assn, of Fire Fighters v. City of Palo Alto (1963) 60 Cal.2d 295, 301-302 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 842 , 384 P.2d 170 ]; Weissman v. Lakewood Water & Power Co. (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 652, 656 [ 343 P.2d 776 ].) On appeal, courts have held that if a plaintiff or cross-complainant has other means of seeking a determination of their rights, then a trial judge may sustain a general demurrer to a declaratory relief claim. 1993(International Assn, of Fire Fighters v. City of Palo Alto (1963) 60 Cal.2d 295, 301-302 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 842 , 384 P.2d 170 ]; Weissman v. Lakewood Water & Power Co. (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 652, 656 [ 343 P.2d 776 ].) On appeal, courts have held that if a plaintiff or cross-complainant has other means of seeking a determination of their rights, then a trial judge may sustain a general demurrer to a declaratory relief claim. | 1 | 2 |
| ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglassgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Warren v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Field v. Bowengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomasset v. Thomassetred | 1 | 1 |
| Teselle v. McLoughlingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blindgreen | 1 | 1 |
| North Associates. v. Bellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bonni v. St. Joseph Health Systemgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Alhambra v. D'Ausilio
green
2 sentences2022(Ibid.) The Court of Appeal concluded that the city’s declaratory relief claim did not arise from D’Ausilio’s protected activities, but rather from “an actual, present controversy between the parties regarding the scope and enforceability of . . . the settlement agreement.” (Alhambra, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 1307 .) The court reached that conclusion based on the allegations in the city’s complaint, the admissions in D’Ausilio’s answer, the “nearly identical declaratory relief claim alleged by appellant in his counterclaim against the City, and the federal court’s order remanding the actio 2018In October 2008, D'Ausilio allegedly breached the settlement agreement by (1) participating in an AFA meeting and advocating that AFA members join a demonstration against the city, and (2) participating in a protest by city employees against the city. ( Id. at p. 1304, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 .) The city sued D'Ausilio for breach of contract, money had and received, and declaratory relief that the settlement agreement was valid and D'Ausilio had breached the agreement. ( Id . at pp. 1304-1305, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 .) D'Ausilio countersued, "seeking a nearly identical judicial declaration," and file | 6 | 2013–2025 |
Ball v. FleetBoston Financial Corp.
green
2 sentences2024(Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 7:42.12.) “Where a trial court has concluded the plaintiff did not state sufficient facts to support a statutory claim and therefore sustained a demurrer as to that claim, a demurrer is also properly sustained as to a claim for declaratory relief which is ‘wholly derivative’ of the statutory claim. [Citation.]” (Ball v. FleetBoston Financial Corp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 794, 800 .) As is evident from the complaint, the City’s declaratory relief claim is wholly derivative of the proposed cause of action f 2021The Demurrer Was Improperly Sustained But the Darwish Family Suffered No Prejudice Before turning to section 2860, we address the Darwish family’s argument that the trial court’s order must be reversed because the SAC sufficiently alleged a controversy subject to declaratory relief, “regardless of whether the plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief.” Citing Ball v. FleetBoston Financial Corp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 794 (Ball), the trial court disagreed, viewing the declaratory relief claim as “wholly derivative” of a substantive claim under section 2860, and “if the underlying substantiv | 3 | 2021–2024 |
Environmental Defense Project v. County of Sierra
green
2 sentences2018The county appealed from an adverse judgment that found the case "ripe" and granted declaratory relief. ( Id. at pp. 883-884, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 474 .) On appeal, the county urged there was no " 'actual controversy' " and the trial court had " 'abused its discretion' " in granting declaratory relief-in other words, the county conflated the two prongs of the declaratory relief analysis. ( Id . at p. 884, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 474 .) As the Court of Appeal explained, the initial inquiry as to whether there is an "actual controversy" is a species of "ripeness" inquiry, presenting a question of law the appel 2018The county appealed from an adverse judgment that found the case "ripe" and granted declaratory relief. ( Id. at pp. 883-884, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 474 .) On appeal, the county urged there was no " 'actual controversy' " and the trial court had " 'abused its discretion' " in granting declaratory relief-in other words, the county conflated the two prongs of the declaratory relief analysis. ( Id . at p. 884, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 474 .) As the Court of Appeal explained, the initial inquiry as to whether there is an "actual controversy" is a species of "ripeness" inquiry, presenting a question of law the appel | 3 | 2014–2018 |
Lee v. Silveira
green
2 sentences2026(Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 ; Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546 .) An actual controversy must relate to the legal rights and duties of the parties, and not extend to potential controversies that are conjectural, anticipated to occur in the future, or constitute an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion from the court. 2021Declaratory Relief The elements of a cause of action for declaratory relief include: “ ‘(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.’ ” (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546 ; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.) For purposes of his prong two burden under the anti-SLAPP statute, Paula tells us that he “made a prima facie showing to sustain a favorable judgment” on the declaratory relief claim. | 2 | 2021–2026 |
Smyth v. Berman
green
2 sentences2025(Smyth v. Berman (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 183, 191-192 .) 8. 2024(Smyth v. Berman (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 183 , 191-192.) The trial court dismissed the claim on the ground that it depended on the first two causes of action, both of which the court deemed deficient, and Honeywell argues that we should affirm on the same basis. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Baldwin v. Marina City Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Unlike in the authority the landlords cite which involved no continuing relationship between the parties (see Cardellini, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at pp. 396-397 [dispute concerning validity of municipal fee paid under protest]; Baldwin, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at pp. 406-408 [dispute concerning past capital contribution made by general partner that allegedly harmed third-party secured creditor of limited partner]), this declaratory relief claim concerns a controversy over the parties’ future rights and obligations to each other. 2016(Osseous, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 360 ; Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 639 (Meyer); Baldwin v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 393 , 407–408 (Baldwin).) “Declaratory relief operates prospectively to declare future rights, rather than to redress past wrongs. [Citation.] Where, as here, a party has a fully matured cause of action for money, the party must seek the remedy of damages, and not pursue a declaratory relief claim.” (Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation Dist. | 2 | 2016–2024 |
Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn.
green
2 sentences2023(See Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 618 .) The anti-SLAPP statute applies only to “causes of action.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) Fielding agrees that the Credit Union’s declaratory relief claim is “tethered to” its defamation claim. 2023(See Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 618 .) The anti-SLAPP statute applies only to “causes of action.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) Fielding agrees that the Credit Union’s declaratory relief claim is “tethered to” its defamation claim. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Mundy v. Lenc
green
2 sentences2022(Ibid.) The court rejected the owner’s attempt to analogize to Alhambra, explaining that “[t]he dispute in [Alhambra] arose over the enforceability and scope of a settlement agreement and not from the plaintiff’s exercise of the right of petition.” (Mundy, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1409 .) The same is true here, where the controversy alleged in the declaratory relief claim arose over the validity of the 2017 agreement, not from Roberts’ filing the complaint. 2018In a subsequent anti-SLAPP case, Mundy v. Lenc (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1401 , 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 ( Mundy ), Division Two of the Second Appellate District-the same court that decided City of Alhambra -distinguished City of Alhambra as "[arising] over the enforceability and scope of a settlement agreement and not from the plaintiff's exercise of the right of petition." ( Mundy , supra , at p. 1408, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 .) The plaintiff, Mundy, a disabled person, sued Lenc, a bar owner, alleging Lenc failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ). ( Id | 2 | 2018–2022 |
Cal. Dept. of Tax and Fee Administration v. Super. Ct.
green
2 sentences2022(California Department of Tax & Fee Administration v. Superior Court (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 922 , 938.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend North American’s claims against the notaries for declaratory relief or for negligent misrepresentation. 23 North American’s claim of error for the declaratory relief claim fails for one, and possibly two, reasons. 2021(California Department of Tax & Fee Administration v. Superior Court (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 922 , 938.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend North American’s claims against the notaries for declaratory relief or for negligent misrepresentation. 23 North American’s claim of error for the declaratory relief claim fails for one, and possibly two, reasons. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Linda Vista Village San Diego Homeowners Ass'n v. Tecolote Investors, LLC
green
2 sentences2021(See Robertson v. Saadat (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 630 , 639 [“We are not bound by the trial court’s reasoning and may affirm the judgment if correct on any theory.”].) The proper course is to modify the judgment to reflect a declaration adverse to the Darwish family and affirm. “ ‘ “ ‘The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.’ ” [Citations.] The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 appears to allow for an extremely broad scope of an action for declaratory relief: “Any person interested under a written instrume 2021(See Robertson v. Saadat (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 630 , 639 [“We are not bound by the trial court’s reasoning and may affirm the judgment if correct on any theory.”].) The proper course is to modify the judgment to reflect a declaration adverse to the Darwish family and affirm. “ ‘ “ ‘The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.’ ” [Citations.] The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 appears to allow for an extremely broad scope of an action for declaratory relief: “Any person interested under a written instrume | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
green
2 sentences2021(See., e.g., Cahill, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956 ; Marriage of Falcone, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 830 .) Appellants have failed to support their contention regarding the court’s grant of nonsuit with respect to the declaratory relief claim with any argument, let alone reasoned argument. 2021(See., e.g., Cahill, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956 ; Marriage of Falcone, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 830 .) Appellants have failed to support their contention regarding the court’s grant of nonsuit with respect to the declaratory relief claim with any argument, let alone reasoned argument. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim
green
2 sentences2021(See Robertson v. Saadat (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 630 , 639 [“We are not bound by the trial court’s reasoning and may affirm the judgment if correct on any theory.”].) The proper course is to modify the judgment to reflect a declaration adverse to the Darwish family and affirm. “ ‘ “ ‘The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.’ ” [Citations.] The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 appears to allow for an extremely broad scope of an action for declaratory relief: “Any person interested under a written instrume 2021(See Robertson v. Saadat (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 630 , 639 [“We are not bound by the trial court’s reasoning and may affirm the judgment if correct on any theory.”].) The proper course is to modify the judgment to reflect a declaration adverse to the Darwish family and affirm. “ ‘ “ ‘The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.’ ” [Citations.] The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 appears to allow for an extremely broad scope of an action for declaratory relief: “Any person interested under a written instrume | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Century 21 Chamberlain & Associates v. Haberman
green
2 sentences2018There, the plaintiffs sued Haberman for account stated, alleging she failed to pay interest on a loan, and for declaratory relief that there was no agreement to submit the account stated claim to private arbitration. ( Id . at p. 6, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 .) The Haberman court held neither claim arose from Haberman's protected activity. ( Id . at p. 7, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 .) Instead, the account stated claim arose from Haberman's alleged act of failing to pay interest on the loan, and the declaratory relief claim arose from Haberman's alleged act of demanding that the plaintiffs arbitrate a neglige 2018There, the plaintiffs sued Haberman for account stated, alleging she failed to pay interest on a loan, and for declaratory relief that there was no agreement to submit the account stated claim to private arbitration. ( Id . at p. 6, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 .) The Haberman court held neither claim arose from Haberman's protected activity. ( Id . at p. 7, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 .) Instead, the account stated claim arose from Haberman's alleged act of failing to pay interest on the loan, and the declaratory relief claim arose from Haberman's alleged act of demanding that the plaintiffs arbitrate a neglige | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Hoffman v. SMITHWOODS RV PARK, LLC
green
2 sentences2015A. Standard of Review "In reviewing a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, we decide de novo whether the complaint states facts sufficient to state a cause of action." (Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1552 .) "We treat the demurrer as admitting all facts properly pleaded, but we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law." (Ibid.) We may also consider documents 7 attached to the complaint and matters subject to judicial notice.3 (Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 390, 400 .) "A rev 2015A. Standard of Review "In reviewing a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, we decide de novo whether the complaint states facts sufficient to state a cause of action." (Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1552 .) "We treat the demurrer as admitting all facts properly pleaded, but we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law." (Ibid.) We may also consider documents 7 attached to the complaint and matters subject to judicial notice.3 (Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 390, 400 .) "A rev | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood
green
2 sentences2015The court also denied plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration of the reliance requirement on the unlawful prong of the UCL in light of an intervening decision from this district, Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1 (Medrazo), which held reliance was not an element of the claim. 2015The court also denied plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration of the reliance requirement on the unlawful prong of the UCL in light of an intervening decision from this district, Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1 (Medrazo), which held reliance was not an element of the claim. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Commission green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| Howitson v. Evans Hotels green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Siskiyou Hospital v. County of Siskiyou green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| South Sutter, LLC v. Lj Sutter Partners, L.P green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Blank v. Kirwan green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Taus v. Loftus red | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| NYGÅRD, INC. v. Uusi-Kerttula green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Faunce v. Cate green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| City of Lancaster v. Netflix, Inc. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Marzec v. Public Employees' Retirement System green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Quindt v. Kilpatrick green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Dintino green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Stoneham v. Rushen green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank, N.A. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Cardellini v. Casey green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Yolo green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.