Is a cross-complaint pleading sufficient to constitute a cause of action?

We decide de novo whether the challenged pleading stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415.)

1. The Cross-Complaint Pled an Accrued Cause of Action

It is true that courts generally do not issue advisory opinions based on a hypothetical state of facts. (People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084.) The ripeness doctrine is "in part designed to regulate the workload of courts by preventing judicial consideration of lawsuits that seek only to obtain general guidance, rather than to resolve specific legal disputes.... [T]he ripeness doctrine is primarily bottomed on the recognition that judicial decisionmaking is best conducted in the context of an actual set of facts so that the issues will be framed with sufficient definiteness to enable the court to make a decree finally disposing of the controversy." (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 170.)