Quiroz v. Cable Tech Corp.

Defendant’s evidence are immaterial to the disposition of the motion.

Defendant to give notice.

109 Quiroz v. Cable Tech Motion to Consolidate Corp., 2023-01340996

110 Shelton v. Children’s Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication – Hospital of Orange GRANTED IN PART County, 2025-01451163 In October 2021, then 15-year-old Makyla Shelton underwent surgery at CHOC to remove a carcinoma on her neck. Doctors Kevin Huoh, M.D. and Gurpreet Ahuja, M.D. informed Makyla and her parents, Rodger and Jill Shelton, that the entire tumor had been removed and the margins were clean or clear. In April or May 2022, an MRI showed a tumor recurrence. Makyla obtained a second opinion at UCLA, where she underwent a second surgery and received radiation treatment.

Makyla, Rodger and Jill Shelton sued doctors Huoh and Ahuja for medical malpractice. These defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.) The motions are generally identical and rely on the exact same expert declaration and evidence.

Plaintiffs oppose the motions but request a continuance in order to conduct additional discovery including: the depositions of Dr. Huoh and Dr. Ahuja, the depositions of the pathologists who reported the frozen sections and the final margin status, a person-most-knowledgeable deposition of CHOC concerning the Tumor Board's composition and deliberations, the deposition of the oncologist alleged to have described the situation as "political," and the production of pathology slides and

blocks and imaging studies in a form permitting independent expert review.

First, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Rodger Shelton and Jill Shelton. In the opposition, Plaintiffs appear to concede that they do not have standing to assert a medical malpractice cause of action against Defendant. Notably, even if Plaintiffs had standing to bring the first cause of action, the cause of action is barred by the one year after discovery of the injury statute of limitations. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5; Young v. Haines (1986) 41 Cal.3d 883, 897, fn. 10.)

The Court finds, however, that Defendants have not established that Plaintiff Makyla Shelton is barred from bringing the first cause of action for medical malpractice by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5. As a minor, Makyla’s claim is not subject to the one year statute of limitations discussed in the moving papers. (Young v. Haines (1986) 41 Cal.3d 883) Summary judgment on Makyla’s claim is DENIED as to this argument.

As to Defendants’ remaining arguments that (1) the care and treatment he rendered to Makyla was well-within the standard of care at all times and (2) no act or omission by them caused Makyla’s claimed injuries, Makyla requests a continuance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h). Makyla’s counsel’s declaration identified specific depositions and specific materials her expert witness needed to review. The declaration states that all of this discovery was scheduled to be completed in August 2026. Defendants’ counsel’s declaration states that none of the discovery was even requested before Plaintiffs’ opposition to the MSJ was due.

At the hearing, counsel shall be prepared to provide the Court with the following:

1. A detailed list of the discovery necessary for Plaintiffs’ expert witness to provide a declaration in opposition to the MSJ.

2. Copies of documents (discovery request with proofs of service; copies of letters or emails, etc.)