With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on this claim was granted. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was reversed. The California appellate court held that the new cause of action for declaratory relief was subsumed in other causes of action and therefore unnecessary and superfluous. Accordingly, the use of this procedural device to circumvent the requirements of California Code of Civil it is not clear whether California or New York law would govern the issues raised in the Complaint before this Court because it is not clear where the facts underlying Quality King’s claims took place. 5. Forum shopping Finally, KMS argues that its motion should be granted because permitting this action to continue would foster forum shopping. See Great American Ins. Co. v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., 735 F.Supp. 581, 586 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>). According to the defendant, based on the

A: recognizing that the declaratory judgment act should not be used as a tool for forum shopping
B: holding that declaratory judgments should not be used as a restraint against criminal action
C: holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action
D: holding that the declaratory judgment act is a procedural device
A.