Case Name: Melchild v. O’Connor Hospital, et al.
Case No.: 1-13-CV-239190

Defendants Enoch Yoon, M.D. and Grace Yu, M.D. (collectively, “Defendants”) demur to the Complaint of plaintiff Thomas Melchild (“Plaintiff”).

Defendants’ request judicial notice of the following facts:

(1) Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 8, 2013;

(2) On March 8, 2013, defendant O’Connor Hospital served on Plaintiff special interrogatories, requests for admissions, form interrogatories, and requests for production;

(3) On May 15, 2013, Plaintiff served on defendant O’Connor Hospital requests for admissions. Requests for Admissions Nos. 33-35 requested O’Connor Hospital to admit to certain facts concerning Dr. Yoon;

(4) Plaintiff included as part of his requests for admissions to O’Connor Hospital portions of his medical records from O’Connor Hospital;

(5) On July 9, 2013, Plaintiff was deposed in this action;

(6) On October 24, 2013, Jack Melchild was deposed;

(7) On October 24, 2013, Dr. Nguyen was also deposed;

(8) On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint substituting Dr. Yoon for Doe 1 and Dr. Yu for Doe 51.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the first and eighth facts. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) With regard to the remaining facts, those facts are not relevant to the instant motion. Although a court may judicially notice a variety of matters, only relevant material may be noticed. (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1057, 1063, overruled on other grounds.) Judicial notice is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand. (Ibid.) Accordingly, Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED as to the second through seventh facts.

Defendants make no argument as to the substantive merits of Plaintiff’s claims, but simply argue that Plaintiff cannot maintain the action against them because of laches. Laches is an unreasonable delay in asserting a right which causes such prejudice to an adverse party as renders the granting of relief inequitable. (Marshall v. Marshall (1965) 232 Cal. App. 2d 232, 252.) The question of laches is one for the determination of the trial court in the light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and its conclusion thereon will not be set aside by an appellate court if there is substantial support for it in the evidence. (Ibid.) A party asserting laches must show both unreasonable delay and prejudice resulting from the delay. (Martin v. Santa Clara Unified School Dist. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 241, 257.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s delay in adding them to this action has prejudiced them because they were unable to participate in discovery and settlement negotiations prior to being added as defendants. The Complaint in this action was filed on January 9, 2013, and Defendants were added to the action on March 25, 2014. Defendants provide no authority for the proposition that adding a defendant to an action a little over a year after the commencement of the action constitutes prejudice such that the doctrine of laches should apply and a plaintiff should be unable to pursue any remedy against that defendant. The fact that certain discovery has already taken place does not automatically prejudice Defendants. Defendants have the right to participate in discovery at this point and it is not apparent from the face of the Complaint to what extent, if any, Defendants have been prejudiced by their previous inability to participate in discovery.

In sum, Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff’s delay in adding them to the action was so unreasonable that the granting of relief against Defendants would be unreasonable. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.