Booth v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 30, 2022
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01612
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Renee Booth, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01612-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 United States of America, 1S Defendants. 16 17 This is a medical malpractice case related to the care of K.C., a minor. See generally 18 | Compl., ECF No. 1. The parties have reached a proposed settlement agreement. See Mot. 19 | Appoint Guardian at 2, ECF No. 31. The plaintiffs now ask the court to appoint Chip Evans as 20 | guardian ad litem of K.C. See generally id. According to their motion, Evans “is an attorney and 21 | has considerable experience in serving as guardian for these types of cases. He is also board 22 | certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.” /d. at 3. The United States does not 23 | oppose this motion. See id. 24 “A minor... who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue... by a 25 | guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 26 | order—to protect a minor . . . who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). A 27 | guardian ad litem must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf 28 | [s]he seeks to litigate.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990); Coal. of Clergy,

1 | Lawyers, & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir. 2002). The court considers 2 | whether the proposed guardian ad litem has an “impermissible conflict of interest” with the minor 3 | plaintiff and the proposed guardian’s “experience, objectivity, and expertise, .. . or previous 4 | relationship” with the minor plaintiff.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 5 | 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To make this assessment, 6 | courts commonly require a declaration by the proposed guardian. See, e.g., Watson v. Cty. of 7 | Santa Clara, 468 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (requiring “‘a written declaration that 8 | the proposed guardian ad litem is independent and would act in the best interests of the minors”). 9 The plaintiffs have not filed a declaration by the proposed guardian, and the court cannot 10 | independently confirm that he is qualified, experienced, and faces no conflicts of interest. The 11 | motion to appoint Evans as a guardian ad litem (ECF No. 31) is thus denied without prejudice 12 | to renewal with evidence to support his appointment. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: August 30, 2022. | / □ 15 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE