§57.6 Analysis

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§57.6ANALYSIS

This section introduces and discusses prerequisites to maintaining a declaratory judgment action, reasons why a court may dismiss or decline to consider a declaratory judgment action, and procedural rules applicable to such actions.

(1)CR57

CR 57 requires that an action seeking a declaratory judgment abide by the civil rules of procedure. The rules of pleading and discovery are, therefore, no different from those governing other civil actions. CR 57 also gives the trial court discretion to prioritize declaratory judgment actions. "The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar." CR 57.

(2)Justiciable controversy

The most frequently litigated issue in the context of declaratory judgment procedure is whether the complaint or petition presents an "actual" or "justiciable" controversy. Even though state courts are not subject to the "case or controversy" requirement of article III, §2 of the U.S. Constitution, they will not, absent extraordinary circumstances, render advisory opinions. It is stated that "A justiciable controversy must exist in order to invoke a court's jurisdiction pursuant to the [Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act]." W. Coast Pizza Co. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 166 Wn.App. 33, 37,271 P.3d 894 (2011) (citingPasado's Safe Haven, 162 Wn.App. at 759).

The "classic" definition of actual controversy, according to Professor Wright, and one frequently cited by courts addressing the threshold issue of justiciable controversy, was authored by Chief Justice Hughes in Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41, 57 S. Ct. 461, 81 L. Ed. 617 (1937) (internal citation omitted):

A "controversy" in this sense must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination. A justiciable controversy is thus distinguished from a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character; from one that is academic or moot. The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. Where there is such a concrete case admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in an adversary proceeding upon the facts alleged, the judicial function maybe appropriately exercised although the adjudication of the rights of the litigants may not require the award of process or the payment of damages. And as it is not essential to the exercise of the judicial power that an injunction be sought, allegations that irreparable injury is threatened are not required.

There are four elements to a justiciable controversy:

(1)... an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as distinguished from a possible, dormant, hypothetical, speculative, or moot disagreement, (2) between parties having genuine and opposing interests, (3) which involves interests that must be direct and substantial, rather than potential, theoretical, abstract or academic, and (4) a judicial determination of which will be final and conclusive.

Pasado's Safe Haven, 162 Wn.App. at 761 (quoting DiNino v. State, 102 Wn.2d 327, 330-31, 684 P.2d 1297 (1984)).

Absent these four elements, a complaint for declaratory relief is subject to dismissal on the grounds that courts will not enter "the prohibited area of advisory opinions." DiNino, 102 Wn.2d at 331.

Practice Tip: A complaint for declaratory judgment should set forth each of the four criteria from DiNino and Pasado's Safe Haven and allege specific facts supporting each of the four.

In Pasado's Safe Haven, a nonprofit corporation sought a declaratory judgment that parts of the state's Humane Slaughter of Livestock Act were unconstitutional. 162 Wn.App. 746. The court first stated, "[b] ecause of the imperative that we avoid issuing advisory opinions, the issue of justiciability is necessarily present in any declaratory judgment action. Indeed, our authority to act is dependent upon whether a justiciable controversy exists." Id. at 760. The court affirmed dismissal because "a judicial determination of the issues raised herein would not conclusively resolve the parties' dispute. Pasado's claim is, therefore, not justiciable." 162 Wn.App. at 761-62.

Practice Tip: A party seeking a declaratory judgment will often face a motion to dismiss based on the absence of a ripe or justiciable controversy. Notwithstanding the repeated statements in the cases that existence of ajusticiable controversy is an absolute prerequisite to maintaining such an action there are, in fact, some exceptions. Keep in mind that the first element requires "an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one ...." To-Ro Trade Skows v. Collins, 144 Wn.2d403, 411, 27 P.3d 1149 (2001), cert, denied, 535 U.S. 931 (2002) (emphasis added); see also Seattle First Nat'l Bank v. Crosby, 42 Wn.2d 234,245,254 P.2d 732 (1953). The emphasized language affords some relief from the absolute requirement language in some of the cases. Other contexts in which the justiciable controversy requirement is relaxed are discussed below.

Acomplaint for declaratory judgment was also dismissed in Diversified Industrial Development Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wn.2d 811, 514P.2d137 (1973), for lack of a justiciable controversy. Following an injury to a minor, the parties sought a declaration of their respective liabilities under a contractual indemnity provision. The court dismissed the action because an injury claim had not been made. The action was not ripe for declaratory relief because the court would have been...