California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Motion Picture Studio Teachers & Welfare Workers v. Millan, 51 Cal.App.4th 1190, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 608 (Cal. App. 1996):
To sustain a laches defense, the evidence must show unreasonable delay by the petitioner and either the petitioner's acquiescence in the decision or prejudice to adverse parties resulting from the delay. (Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center (1980) 27 Cal.3d 614, 624, 166 Cal.Rptr. 826, 614 P.2d 258.) Respondents do not argue that they have changed position in reliance on appellant's delay, or that any prejudice has ensued. They suggest that prejudice will occur because studio teachers currently certified with only the multiple subject credential will be harmed by strict enforcement of section 11755. The evidence does not establish that this is the case, as appellant's petition sought only prospective compliance with the regulation. Respondents, in any event, have shown no prejudice to themselves resulting from any delay by appellant. Laches is not a proper defense to appellant's claim.
Finally, respondents argue that appellant has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (See Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 291-292, 109 P.2d 942.) The omission, according to them, is that appellant has not petitioned respondents to adopt, amend or repeal the regulation, pursuant to Government Code sections 11347 [51 Cal.App.4th 1198] and 11347.1. The relief suggested does not provide an adequate remedy. Rather than change the existing regulation, appellant seeks to do the reverse. Appellant wants the regulation enforced as written. There is no administrative remedy for appellant to pursue. Its remedy is a writ of mandate, which it sought, and which the trial court improperly denied.
Page 613
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.