California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Tokeshi v. State of California, 217 Cal.App.3d 999, 266 Cal.Rptr. 255 (Cal. App. 1990):
"The entertainment of an action for declaratory relief is within the discretionary power of the trial court. Its decision will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. [Citations.]" (Gardiner v. Gaither (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 607, 622, fn. 1, 329 P.2d 22; see also Code Civ.Proc., 1061 which provides that "[t]he court may refuse to exercise ... [its declaratory relief power] in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances.") As mentioned earlier, the trial court declined to hear the action because it found "no present dispute between parties that would make declaratory [217 Cal.App.3d 1009] relief appropriate." Based on the record below, the trial court was within its discretion to determine that the cause of action for declaratory relief was pleaded as an alternate means of recovering damages from defendants for improperly instructing them to use Plictran 50W. Since the immunity statutes, however, shield defendants from damage liability, there exists no controversy between the litigants.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.