Jury trial declaratory judgment action




















The court may order a speedy hearing of a declaratory-judgment action. As amended Dec. Inasmuch as it often involves only an issue of law on undisputed or relatively undisputed facts, it operates frequently as a summary proceeding, justifying docketing the case for early hearing as on a motion, as provided for in California Code Civ.

Tennessee Valley Authority , U. The existence or nonexistence of any right, duty, power, liability, privilege, disability, or immunity or of any fact upon which such legal relations depend, or of a status, may be declared. The petitioner must have a practical interest in the declaration sought and all parties having an interest therein or adversely affected must be made parties or be cited.

A declaration may not be rendered if a special statutory proceeding has been provided for the adjudication of some special type of case, but general ordinary or extraordinary legal remedies, whether regulated by statute or not, are not deemed special statutory proceedings.

When declaratory relief will not be effective in settling the controversy, the court may decline to grant it. Entin filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order directing the superior court to grant his request for a jury trial. Entin argued that he had a right to a jury because the case raised factual issues concerning his entitlement to contractual insurance benefits. The issue of whether Entin was constitutionally entitled to a jury trial is a pure question of law.

The right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the California Constitution. As a general proposition, the jury trial is a matter of right in a civil action at law, but not in equity. If the action is essentially one in equity and the relief sought depends upon the application of equitable doctrines, the parties are not entitled to a jury trial.

Several California decisions have addressed whether the right to a jury attaches in declaratory relief actions seeking a determination of insurance coverage. The general rule is that if the issues of fact arising would have been triable by a jury as of right in an action which might have been substituted for the declaratory judgment action by either party, then there is a right to jury trial on such issues.

California courts will not permit a declaratory action to be used as a device to circumvent the right to a jury trial in cases where such right would be guaranteed if the proceeding were coercive rather than declaratory in nature. Notwithstanding that an action for declaratory relief is characterized as an action in equity, there is a right to a jury trial of material triable issues of fact concerning a breach of contract claim.

For example, if an insurance policy is ambiguous, and the resolution of the ambiguity turns on disputed extrinsic evidence, the dispute must be resolved by a jury upon demand.

These are pure issues of fact and Entin was entitled to have a jury decide them. This is a case where form overcame substance. Provident believed that Mr. Entin was not disabled as he claimed and that, therefore, his claim was fraudulent. Rather than apply its position directly the insurer filed a suit it called a complaint for declaratory relief hoping to avoid a jury trial. It failed because the issue was not an interpretation of the contract but was, rather, a question of whether Mr.

Entin was really disabled. If Provident had evidence that Entin was not disabled it should have denied his claim in its entirety. Added by Acts , 80th Leg. September 1, A declaration does not prejudice the rights of a person not a party to the proceeding.

If a proceeding under this chapter involves the determination of an issue of fact, the issue may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of fact are tried and determined in other civil actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending. The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree if the judgment or decree would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. Tzall U. Guerin and S. Bracken II and S. Supreme Court Stays Vaccine William Manuel and Anne R.

Bezanson and Claire E. Patti Jr. Burnside and Claire R. Bergeson and Carla N. Aronie and David L. Read This Freedman U. Millar and Tracy P. Valdetero and Jessica D. Ludd and Karen J. Morgan Healthcare Conference Greene and Michael R. Rivers and Paul M. Carra and K.



0コメント

  • 1000 / 1000