Arnold and Carrigan, there is no allegation of wrongdoing on their part nor any allegation that they were responsible for the contract being entered into before the plans were completed. Moreover, in the section detailing the relief sought by Plaintiff under Count I, there is no mention of the two non-diverse Defendants, save perhaps for the request that the Court declare the contract was entered into before the plans were completed. (Comply 25a.) The fact that the two non-diverse Defendants were named pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-30-1 et seq. does not relieve Plaintiff of the obligation to allege sufficient facts supporting the claim that they have a legal interest in the proceeding. Lamb v. Perry, 101 R.I. 538, 225 A.2d 521, 523 (1967)(<HOLDING>). The utter dearth of factual allegations
holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding that letter stating that the defendant was fully prepared to take all necessary legal action in order to protect defendants work was sufficient to show an actual threat of litigation and created a case or controversy for the purposes of the declaratory judgment act holding that the case or controversy requirement applies with equal force to actions for declaratory judgment holding that actual controversy requirement is met where there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment holding that to establish jurisdiction in action for declaratory judgment controversy must be actual and present a case for the consideration of the court wherein plaintiff is asserting some legal or property right adverse to defendant