would be between the estate’s representative and ICRC. Any dispute as to who the rightful beneficiaries of Mr. Cain’s estate are, has not yet been raised by that representative or the alleged beneficiary. Even if that question arises, the dispute would be between the representative and that alleged beneficiary. ICRC cannot rely upon this alleged controversy to maintain its declaratory action. b. Does the issue of damages create a “real and actual” controversy to maintain the declaratory action? In the first amended complaint, ICRC “admits, solely for the purposes of this lawsuit, that it is liable under the FELA to the lawful wrongful death beneficiaries of Mark W. Cain[.]” First Amended Compl., ¶ 1. The plaintiff contends, th ., Inc., 2002 WL 32818011, at *9 (N.D.Ohio Oct.17, 2002) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Hanley,
holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that the determination and assessment of damages are not the primary purpose of a declaratory action holding that because the declaratory judgment seeks no damages whatsoever it is not an action for benefits holding that contracts where the primary purpose is to restrain trade are void holding that declaratory relief is not appropriate for determination of rights in anticipation of enforcement action that may never occur