“The judicial obligation to resolve controversies brought before the courts does not require adjudication of conjectural or premature matters that are not actual and present controversies. Whether a particular matter is premature or ripe for determination depends on the facts of the case. . . The California Supreme Court has explained that the ripeness requirement: ‘is rooted in the fundamental concept that the proper role of the judiciary does not extend to the resolution of abstract differences of legal opinion. It is in part designed to regulate the workload of courts by preventing judicial consideration of lawsuits that seek only to obtain general guidance, rather than to resolve specific legal disputes. However, the ripeness doctrine is primarily bottomed on the recognition that judicial decision making is best conducted in the context of an actual set of facts so that the issues will be framed with sufficient definiteness to enable the court to make a decree finally disposing of the controversy.'”
[California Affirmative Defenses [certain citations omitted]]
