This might answer that for you as it did for me:
Declaratory Judgment
The critical thing about an action for a DJ, and what distinguishes it from other causes of action, has to do with what relief is being sought. It's very limited.
A DJ doesn't do anything but "declare" and "clarify" the legal rights of the parties. It doesn't result in damages and it doesn't order anyone to do anything.
Example: A and B have an ongoing contract and they disagree over the meaning of one of the provisions. A DJ action would ask the Court to determine the meaning of the provision and settle it once and for all so that A and B know how to perform in the future.
If you want damages, you'd have to make a claim for breach of contract. If you want the other side to do something or refrain from doing something, you need to ask for an injunction. So, in the above example, if you wanted anything more than simply a finding from the Court about what the contract means - like damages for past non-performance -- you'd have to plead a breach of contract claim. If you wanted an order compelling the other party to do something, or refrain from doing it, you'd need to plead for an injunction. Those claims may overlap factually, but they are distinct legal remedies and they need to be specifically asked for.
All that said, and with the disclaimer that I only know what I read in the last couple of attachments, it looks like a bit of a mess. Sotis pleaded for things that were probably beyond purely declaratory relief (an order requiring reinstatement, which would be injunctive in nature). It also seems pretty clear from the order that the plaintiff is not putting on a very robust case. In short, looks like a pretty half-assed effort.
