Court Opinion

ID: 9632458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:15:33.874578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:16.547333
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.
I concur in the judgment of reversal solely upon the ground that judgment on the pleadings should not have been granted without leave to amend. As I read the complaint, it does not state any facts showing that Harney has a sufficient legal interest to maintain the action. However, the plaintiff should not have been foreclosed from a further attempt to state facts justifying the relief sought. (MacIsaac v. Pozzo, 26 Cal.2d 809, 815-816 [161 P.2d 449].)
Only an “interested person” may obtain declaratory relief to determine the validity of an administrative regulation. (Gov. Code, § 11440.) The bare allegation that Harney is qualified to do specialty contracting work, without more, does not constitute a showing of any interest in the challenged rule. The plaintiff should be required to allege facts showing its interest. These might be, for example, that it had an opportunity to bid on some particular specialty contracting work but was prevented from doing so by the rule, or that, prior to the promulgation of the rule, it regularly bid on the type of work now covered thereby.
To allow Harney by its present pleading to obtain a determination as to the validity of the rule of the administrative agency in effect provides a convenient method for securing an advisory opinion from this court. This is beyond the scope of the statute and contrary to established judicial procedure.