Amended petition for declaratory relief
minniezh2008@yahoo.com The clerk is directed to give notice as described above.
5. Petition of Strom 2025-01481925 Before the court is the amended petition of petitioner Philip Gabriel Strom (Petitioner) seeking “declarative relief acknowledging one same person.” As set forth more fully below, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
By this petition, Petitioner seeks an order declaring his ancestors had presented under the anglicized version of their birth names and are the same person, i.e., deceased great grandmother, Mary Antoinette Bianchi, presented as Mary Whilte; deceased great-great grandfather, Cesidio Bianchi, presented as Jesse White, and his great-great grandmother, Genoveffa Palma, presented as Genevieve Palmer. This relief is sought to enable Petitioner to obtain Italian citizenship based on these ancestors.
On March 2, 2026, the court noted the original petition filed on May 12, 2025, lacked any authority, statutes, codes or case law, and any amended petition would need to include such authority and be supported by certified copies or originals of any documents. (ROA 9.)
In response, Petitioner filed the amended petition seeking the same relief as the original petition, and citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 and related case law on declaratory relief pursuant to that statute. “To qualify for declaratory relief under section 1060, plaintiffs [are] required to show their action . . . presented two essential elements: ‘(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.’ [Citation.] ‘The “actual controversy” language in . . . section 1060 encompasses a probable future controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties.’ [Citation.]
It does not embrace controversies that are ‘conjectural, anticipated to occur in the future, or an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion from the court.’ [Citation.]” (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546.)
“‘While section 1060’s language “appears to allow for an extremely broad scope of an action for declaratory relief” [citation], “an actual controversy that is currently active is required for such relief to be issued and both standing and ripeness are appropriate criteria in that determination. [Citation.]” [Citation.] “One cannot analyze requested declaratory relief without evaluating the nature of the rights and duties that the plaintiff is asserting, which must follow some recognized or cognizable legal theories that are related to subjects and requests for relief that are properly before the court.”’ [Citation.]” (Lee, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 546.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, Petitioner has failed to establish declaratory relief is appropriate in this case. Petitioner has not joined any party as a defendant in this case with whom he has a controversy, and he has not established the existence of any actual, present controversy relating to his rights and duties and the rights and duties of any other party.
Petitioner asks this court to declare the records of another state and county are inaccurate in that they fail to set forth the correct birthname of Petitioner’s alleged ancestors. The records at the heart of Petitioner’s claim, and the records from which many others derive, are from Indiana. Petitioner has not set forth any authority authorizing this court to declare Indiana records inaccurate. Indeed, Petitioner does not rely on any records from Orange County.
A controversy requires two parties, but Petitioner is seeking a declaration without joining another party with whom he has a controversy. At a minimum, it would appear some official from the jurisdiction where the allegedly inaccurate records were issued would need to be named in this case, and Petitioner may need to go to that jurisdiction to obtain the requested relief. In short, Petitioner has failed to establish he has brought this action in the proper court and joined all necessary parties.
As noted at a prior hearing, the court acknowledges the purported order from the San Diego County Superior Court from February 2018, which allegedly grants the sort of relief Petitioner seeks here. An order or ruling from another trial court, however, may not be cited and does not constitute authority of any sort in other unrelated trial court proceedings. Moreover, there is no evidence presented to show the facts in that case are in any way comparable to the facts of this case.
Based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is directed to give notice of this ruling.
6. Supplement Advisory, Inc. vs. Robinson Manufacturing, Inc. 2025-01519709 Before the court is the petition by petitioner Supplement Advisory, Inc., dba The Mewes Group (Petitioner) in which it seeks to confirm a Final Arbitration Award, dated July 15, 2025, by Judge Kirk Nakamura (Ret.) at JAMS in favor of Petitioner and against respondent Robinson Manufacturing,