method analysis in California

2025Proc., § 437c, subds. (c), (f)(1); Certain Underwriters, at p. 972.) “We independently review the parties’ papers supporting and opposing the motion, using the same method of analysis as the trial court.” (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373 .) In doing so, we must liberally construe the opposing party’s evidence, strictly construe the moving party’s evidence, and resolve all doubts and reasonable inferences in favor of 26 the opposing party.

2024Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards.” (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373 .) Under Aguilar, the movant initially carries the burden of making a prima facie showing in its favor. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(1); see Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) “The prima facie showing by the moving party must be such that it would, if uncontradicted, entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] That is, ‘a moving defendant must present evidence which, if uncontradicted, would constitute a preponderance of evidence [i.e

2021(Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1601 .) We consider all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers, except that as to which objections have been made and sustained. (§ 437c, subd. (c).) “We independently review the parties’ papers supporting and opposing the motion, using the same method of analysis as the trial court.

2021(Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1601 .) “We independently review the parties’ papers supporting and opposing the motion, using the same method of analysis as the trial court.

2025(Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 64 ; McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88 , 96–97; Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768 ; Borman, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 1055.) PII moved for summary adjudication on the ground that the insuring agreements did not cover attorney fees paid in connection with the Hardison settlement.13 In support, the insurer offered a declaration from the Hardison tenants’ attorney, stating he had received a total of $407,000 in fees from the settlement paid to the tenants.

2018Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards." ( Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369 , 1373, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 699 .) In performing our de novo review, "we must view the evidence in a light favorable to plaintiff as the losing party [citation], liberally construing her evidentiary submission while strictly scrutinizing defendants' own showing, and resolving any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiff's favor." ( Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 , supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 768, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 23 P.3d 1143 ; accord, *821 Johnson v. Ame

2025Proc., ]§ 437c, subd. (c); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 (Aguilar).) ‘We independently review the parties’ papers supporting and opposing the motion, using the same method of analysis as the trial court.

2024(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) Argument presented for the first time in reply will generally “not be entertained because of the unfairness to the other party.” (People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 1075 .) We see no reason to depart from the general rule here. 6 25 Cal.4th 826 (Aguilar).) “We independently review the parties’ papers supporting and opposing the motion, using the same method of analysis as the trial court.

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2025(Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 64 ; McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88 , 96–97; Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768 ; Borman, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 1055.) PII moved for summary adjudication on the ground that the insuring agreements did not cover attorney fees paid in connection with the Hardison settlement.13 In support, the insurer offered a declaration from the Hardison tenants’ attorney, stating he had received a total of $407,000 in fees from the settlement paid to the tenants.

2018Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards." ( Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369 , 1373, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 699 .) In performing our de novo review, "we must view the evidence in a light favorable to plaintiff as the losing party [citation], liberally construing her evidentiary submission while strictly scrutinizing defendants' own showing, and resolving any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiff's favor." ( Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 , supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 768, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 23 P.3d 1143 ; accord, *821 Johnson v. Ame

1994Usually, “a proceeding [for a writ of administrative mandate] under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 is the exclusive remedy for judicial review of the quasi-adjudicatory administrative action of the local-level agency. [Citation.] Unless a party seeks a declaration a statute or ordinance controlling development is facially unconstitutional as applied to all property governed and not to a particular parcel of land, an action for declaratory relief may not be had. [Citations.] An action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review the validity of an administrative decision. [Citati

1994Usually, “a proceeding [for a writ of administrative mandate] under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 is the exclusive remedy for judicial review of the quasi-adjudicatory administrative action of the local-level agency. [Citation.] Unless a party seeks a declaration a statute or ordinance controlling development is facially unconstitutional as applied to all property governed and not to a particular parcel of land, an action for declaratory relief may not be had. [Citations.] An action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review the validity of an administrative decision. [Citati

2024Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards.” (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373 .) Under Aguilar, the movant initially carries the burden of making a prima facie showing in its favor. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(1); see Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) “The prima facie showing by the moving party must be such that it would, if uncontradicted, entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] That is, ‘a moving defendant must present evidence which, if uncontradicted, would constitute a preponderance of evidence [i.e

2024Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards.” (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373 .) Under Aguilar, the movant initially carries the burden of making a prima facie showing in its favor. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(1); see Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) “The prima facie showing by the moving party must be such that it would, if uncontradicted, entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] That is, ‘a moving defendant must present evidence which, if uncontradicted, would constitute a preponderance of evidence [i.e

2024Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards.” (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373 .) Under Aguilar, the movant initially carries the burden of making a prima facie showing in its favor. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(1); see Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) “The prima facie showing by the moving party must be such that it would, if uncontradicted, entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] That is, ‘a moving defendant must present evidence which, if uncontradicted, would constitute a preponderance of evidence [i.e

2024Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards.” (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373 .) Under Aguilar, the movant initially carries the burden of making a prima facie showing in its favor. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(1); see Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) “The prima facie showing by the moving party must be such that it would, if uncontradicted, entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] That is, ‘a moving defendant must present evidence which, if uncontradicted, would constitute a preponderance of evidence [i.e

2024Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards.” (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373 .) Under Aguilar, the movant initially carries the burden of making a prima facie showing in its favor. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(1); see Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) “The prima facie showing by the moving party must be such that it would, if uncontradicted, entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] That is, ‘a moving defendant must present evidence which, if uncontradicted, would constitute a preponderance of evidence [i.e

2024Essentially, we assume the role of the trial court and apply the same rules and standards.” (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373 .) Under Aguilar, the movant initially carries the burden of making a prima facie showing in its favor. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(1); see Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) “The prima facie showing by the moving party must be such that it would, if uncontradicted, entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] That is, ‘a moving defendant must present evidence which, if uncontradicted, would constitute a preponderance of evidence [i.e

2023Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 838 [“[P]laintiff waived the disqualification by his failure to urge it in the manner and at the time required by the statute.”]; Develop-Amatic Engineering v. Republic Mortg.

2023Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 838 [“[P]laintiff waived the disqualification by his failure to urge it in the manner and at the time required by the statute.”]; Develop-Amatic Engineering v. Republic Mortg.

2023(See § 904.1, subd. (a)(1) [appeal may not be taken from a “judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222”4]; John Breuner Co. v. Bryant (1951) 36 Cal.2d 877, 878 (John Breuner Co.) [“It is well settled that orders and judgments made in cases of contempt are not appealable, and this rule has been held applicable both where the trial court 4 Section 1222 provides: “The judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” (§ 1222.) 6 imposed punishment for contempt and where the alleged contemner was discharged.”]; Imuta v. Nak

2023Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2 .) 10 Under section 904(a)(1), an appeal may not be taken from “a judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222.” Section 1222 provides that “[t]he judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” Thus, under those statutory provisions, “[i]t is well settled that orders and judgments made in cases of contempt are not appealable.” (John Breuner Co. v. Bryant (1951) 36 Cal.2d 877, 878 (Breuner); McCord v. Smith (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 358 , 367.) “The proper meth

2023Caminetti, supra, 22 Cal.2d at p. 391 [“While the 1927 amendment does not specify in so many words a penalty for failure to urge disqualification at the ‘earliest practicable opportunity,’ the intention is clear that failure to comply with the provision constitutes a waiver.”]; Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Jarvis (1959) 51 Cal.2d 799, 801 [“where an objection to the judge on the ground of his disqualification was not made at the earliest practicable opportunity, it was waived by the conduct of the parties”]; Mayo v. Beber (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 544, 550 ; People v. Pratt (1962) 20

2023Caminetti, supra, 22 Cal.2d at p. 391 [“While the 1927 amendment does not specify in so many words a penalty for failure to urge disqualification at the ‘earliest practicable opportunity,’ the intention is clear that failure to comply with the provision constitutes a waiver.”]; Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Jarvis (1959) 51 Cal.2d 799, 801 [“where an objection to the judge on the ground of his disqualification was not made at the earliest practicable opportunity, it was waived by the conduct of the parties”]; Mayo v. Beber (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 544, 550 ; People v. Pratt (1962) 20

2023(See § 904.1, subd. (a)(1) [appeal may not be taken from a “judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222”4]; John Breuner Co. v. Bryant (1951) 36 Cal.2d 877, 878 (John Breuner Co.) [“It is well settled that orders and judgments made in cases of contempt are not appealable, and this rule has been held applicable both where the trial court 4 Section 1222 provides: “The judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” (§ 1222.) 6 imposed punishment for contempt and where the alleged contemner was discharged.”]; Imuta v. Nak

2013(See People v. Gonzalez, supra, at p. 816 [contempt judgment reviewable by writ]; Koehler v. Superior Court, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1165 [prohibition lies to challenge contempt order except when petitioner is in custody, in which case habeas corpus is appropriate remedy]; Imuta v. Nakano (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1570, 1584, fn. 18 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 681 ] [writ of certiorari is remedy for invalid contempt judgment], ) Section 800, subdivision (a) provides that a minor in a. proceeding under section 601 may appeal from “any subsequent order” following a judgment as “an order after judgment.” Al

2023Caminetti, supra, 22 Cal.2d at p. 391 [“While the 1927 amendment does not specify in so many words a penalty for failure to urge disqualification at the ‘earliest practicable opportunity,’ the intention is clear that failure to comply with the provision constitutes a waiver.”]; Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Jarvis (1959) 51 Cal.2d 799, 801 [“where an objection to the judge on the ground of his disqualification was not made at the earliest practicable opportunity, it was waived by the conduct of the parties”]; Mayo v. Beber (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 544, 550 ; People v. Pratt (1962) 20

2023Caminetti, supra, 22 Cal.2d at p. 391 [“While the 1927 amendment does not specify in so many words a penalty for failure to urge disqualification at the ‘earliest practicable opportunity,’ the intention is clear that failure to comply with the provision constitutes a waiver.”]; Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Jarvis (1959) 51 Cal.2d 799, 801 [“where an objection to the judge on the ground of his disqualification was not made at the earliest practicable opportunity, it was waived by the conduct of the parties”]; Mayo v. Beber (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 544, 550 ; People v. Pratt (1962) 20

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2023(Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2022) § 16.130, p. 16-91; see In re Misener (1985) 38 Cal.3d 543, 558 [“An order of contempt cannot stand if the underlying order is invalid”]; In re M.R. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 49, 65 [“The proper method to challenge a contempt order is to seek extraordinary writ relief”].) However, “[b]ecause the shield law provides only an immunity from contempt, there is nothing from which to seek [writ] relief until a newsperson has been adjudged in contempt.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 459 .) Therefore, “a newsperson’s petition for extraordinary rel

2023Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2 .) 10 Under section 904(a)(1), an appeal may not be taken from “a judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222.” Section 1222 provides that “[t]he judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” Thus, under those statutory provisions, “[i]t is well settled that orders and judgments made in cases of contempt are not appealable.” (John Breuner Co. v. Bryant (1951) 36 Cal.2d 877, 878 (Breuner); McCord v. Smith (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 358 , 367.) “The proper meth

2014(See State of California v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d at pp. 248-249; Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 126-127 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 799 , 514 P.2d 111 ].) B.

1977The appropriate method by which to consider such a claim is by a proceeding in mandamus under section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. . . .” (Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d 110, 128 .) Plaintiffs point out their case is different from Selby in that the plaintiff in that action sought judicial relief before complying with the city’s demand and hence mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 was an appropriate method to test the validity of the conditions the city was attempting to impose.

1955(People v. Garcia, 98 Cal.App. 702 [ 277 P. 747 ]; People v. Wilkerson, 99 Cal.App. 123 [ 278 P. 466 ]; People v. Spinato, 100 Cal.App. 600 [ 280 P. 691 ]; People v. Woods, 126 Cal.App. 158 [ 14 P.2d 313 ]; People v. Washington, 95 Cal.App.2d 454 [ 213 P.2d 70 ].) The right to trial by jury in a criminal case is a sacred one and accordingly the method of waiver provided in the Constitution must be strictly followed.

1955(People v. Garcia, 98 Cal.App. 702 [ 277 P. 747 ]; People v. Wilkerson, 99 Cal.App. 123 [ 278 P. 466 ]; People v. Spinato, 100 Cal.App. 600 [ 280 P. 691 ]; People v. Woods, 126 Cal.App. 158 [ 14 P.2d 313 ]; People v. Washington, 95 Cal.App.2d 454 [ 213 P.2d 70 ].) The right to trial by jury in a criminal case is a sacred one and accordingly the method of waiver provided in the Constitution must be strictly followed.

2023Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2 .) 10 Under section 904(a)(1), an appeal may not be taken from “a judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222.” Section 1222 provides that “[t]he judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” Thus, under those statutory provisions, “[i]t is well settled that orders and judgments made in cases of contempt are not appealable.” (John Breuner Co. v. Bryant (1951) 36 Cal.2d 877, 878 (Breuner); McCord v. Smith (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 358 , 367.) “The proper meth

2013Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a) [appeal may not be taken from a “judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222”]; People v. Gonzalez, *65 supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 816 .) The proper method to challenge a contempt order is to seek extraordinary writ relief, either through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, certiorari, or prohibition.

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory

2014Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ], quoting Walker v. Munro (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 67, 72 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 737 ] [“ ‘The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree.’ ”]; see Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] [“A difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute as between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy [for declaratory