§57.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES
Significant authorities under CR 57 are discussed below.
(1)Justiciable controversy requirement
The courts will liberally administer the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, but a party must satisfy the threshold requirements before the court will render a declaratory judgment. Bloome v. Haverly, 154 Wn.App. 129, 229P.3d330 (2010). A pizza company's declaratory judgment action concerning insurance coverage was not justiciable because the pizza franchises that plaintiff claimed were covered were not parties. W. Coast Pizza Co. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 166 Wn.App. 33, 271P.3d894 (2011).
Parties' consent to the court's exercise of jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment is not binding on the court. Kitsap County v. City ofBremerton, 46 Wn.2d362,281 P.2d 841(1955); Wash. Local Lodge No. 104 v. Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 28 Wn.2d 536, 189 P.2d 648 (1947); Wash. Beauty Coll., Inc. v. Huse, 195 Wash. 160,166,80P.2d403 (1938).
The court may dismiss a declaratory judgment action if the parties do not have direct and actual opposing interests. Thompson v. Wilson, 142 Wn.App. 803, 175P.3d1149 (2008); State ex. rel Fink v. Fruitland Irrig. Dist, 196 Wash. 11, 81P.2d844 (1938).
A declaration action challenging a county's record-keeping procedures as violative of Chapter 40.14 RCW sought an advisory opinion, and the claim was not justiciable. Daines v. Spokane County, 111 Wn.App. 342, 44P.3d909 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane Cnty. v. Spokane County, 172 Wn.2d 702, 261P.3d119 (2011).
In ascertaining whether a party's interests are within the zone protected by the statute in question, the court will look to the statute's purpose and operation. Five Corners Family Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296, 268P.3d892 (2011).
A party seeking a declaratory judgment must demonstrate that (1) the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of the interests protected or regulated by the statute in question and (2) the challenged action must have caused injury in fact. Id. at 303.
The court will require the existence of ajusticiable controversy before entertaining a declaratory judgment action. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Bellingham, 163 Wn.App. 427, 260P.3d245 (2011), review denied, 173 Wn.2d 1029 (2012).
Under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, a court will resolve only justiciable controversies and will not issue advisory opinions. Pasado's Safe Haven v. State, 162 Wn.App. 746, 259P.3d280 (2011).
When the declaratory action does not afford the court the ability to completely resolve a dispute, the court will decline jurisdiction. Pasado's Safe Haven, 162 Wn.App. 746. In that case, Pasado's Safe Haven, a Washington nonprofit corporation, sought to have certain provisions of the Washington humane slaughter of livestock act, RCW 16.50.110(3)(b) and RCW 16.50.150, declared unconstitutional. But doing so would have resulted in the criminalization of a means of slaughter that the legislature expressly defined as lawful. The court held that the relief sought was not obtainable and therefore a justiciable claim was not presented. Id.
A complaint for declaratory judgment based on a legislative policy question raises a political question and will not be entertained by the court. Nw. Animal Rights Network, 158 Wn.App. 237.
(2)Standing
To satisfy the standing requirement of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, a party must (1) be within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the provision in question and (2) the party must have suffered an injury in fact. Am. Legion Post #149 v. Wash. State Dep't of Health, 164 Wn.2d 570, 192 P.3d 306 (2008).
(3)Relaxation of justiciable controversy requirement
The court may entertain a declaratory judgment action even when the controversy is not ripe, if the circumstances are compelling, Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Crosby, 42 Wn.2d 234,254 P.2d 732 (1953), or major public importance is involved, Wash. St. Coal, for the Homeless v. Dep't ofSoc. & Health Servs., 133 Wn.2d 894, 949 P.2d 1291 (1997).
The court may entertain a declaratory judgment action involving First Amendment rights based on the proposition that the presence of a "chilling effect" constitutes present harm. Walker v. Munro, 124 Wn.2d 402, 879 P.2d 920 (1994).
The court may entertain an action for declaratory judgment absent an actual and justiciable controversy if the issue is of sufficient public importance that the public interest will be served by the court's determination. Kitsap County v. Smith, 143 Wn.App. 893, 180P.3d834, review denied, 164 Wn.2d 1036 (2008); Ackerley Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 92 Wn.2d 905, 602P.2d1177 (1979), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 804 (1980).
Mootness may not result in dismissal of a declaratory action if a question of great public importance remains...
