Davis v. County of Solano

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02161
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEOLA DAVIS, et al., No. 2:24-cv-02161-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MARGRETTE DAVIS 14 COUNTY OF SOLANO, et al., AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFF O.D. 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 27) 16 17 On August 13, 2024, petitioner Margrette Davis filed a motion for appointment as 18 guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff O.D. in this case. (Doc. No. 6.) The court denied that motion 19 without prejudice on October 31, 2024, because the motion did not comply with the requirements 20 of Local Rule 202(c). (Doc. No. 21.) On February 8, 2025, Plaintiff O.D. filed a renewed motion 21 to appoint Margrette Davis as guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 27.) On February 10, 2025, the court 22 ordered Plaintiffs to file a supplemental declaration by Plaintiffs’ counsel to support the renewed 23 motion, as the renewed motion failed to comply with Local Rule 202(c), for the same reasons the 24 court denied the first motion. (Doc. No. 28.) On March 3, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a 25 supplemental declaration in support of the pending motion. (Doc. No. 29.) Pursuant to Local Rule 26 230(g), the pending motion is taken under submission to be decided on the papers. Accordingly, 27 the court vacates the hearing on the pending motion scheduled for April 18, 2025. For the reasons 28 explained below, the court will grant the renewed motion and appoint Margrette Davis as Plaintiff 1 O.D.’s guardian ad litem. 2 Under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor or an incompetent 3 person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a 4 guardian ad litem.” “The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 5 order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 17(c)(2). A representative of a minor or incompetent person may sue or defend on behalf of the 7 minor or incompetent person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 8 The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. United States v. 9 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 10 (9th Cir. 1986). A court shall take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests 11 of the individual during the litigation. Id. The guardian need not possess special qualifications, 12 but he must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to 13 litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting 14 Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990)). 15 In this district, Local Rule 202(a) further provides, in pertinent part: 16 Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor . . . the attorney 17 representing the minor or incompetent person shall present . . . a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or 18 . . . a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or 19 incompetent person. 20 L.R. 202(a) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). Local Rule 202 also requires disclosure of the 21 attorney’s interest, specifically requiring the following: 22 When the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the 23 attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of 24 action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has 25 received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount. 26 27 L.R. 202(c). 28 The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion 1 of the trial court.” 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 804. 2 The court finds the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) have been satisfied. The proposed 3 guardian ad litem Margrette Davis represents that she is the aunt of minor Plaintiff O.D. (Doc. 4 No. 27 at ¶¶ 1, 3.) Further, Margrette Davis states she is willing to serve as Plaintiff O.D.’s 5 guardian ad litem in this case, and she “is fully competent to understand and protect the rights of 6 O.D. and has no interest adverse to O.D.” (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 6.) 7 The motion also meets the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). In a declaration filed in 8 support of the pending motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel Brandon Yee declares that his law firm Burris 9 Nisenbaum Curry and Lacy, LLP, was retained by Margrette Davis to represent Plaintiff O.D. in 10 this case. (Doc. No. 29 at ¶ 3.) Attorney Yee represents the engagement of his law firm is on a 11 pure contingency fee basis, and he asserts that if they “[do] not win the case, [he] would not be 12 paid and O.D. and O.D.’s family would owe [him] nothing,” and he “would not receive any 13 compensation by anyone. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Attorney Lee further clarifies that he “[has] never been 14 employed or affiliated with any of the defendants, their agents, employees, or their insurance 15 carriers nor have they had any involvement whatsoever in my being retained to represent the 16 interests [of] O.D. and Ms. Davis.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) 17 For these reasons, Plaintiff O.D.’s renewed motion for the appointment of Margrette 18 Davis as guardian ad litem will be granted. 19 Accordingly: 20 1. The renewed motion for the appointment of Margrette Davis as guardian ad litem 21 for Plaintiff O.D. (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED; 22 2. Margrette Davis is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff O.D. and is 23 authorized to prosecute the action on her behalf; and 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. In light of this order, the hearing on Plaintiff O.D.’s renewed motion set for April 2 18, 2025 is VACATED. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 6 | Dated: _ March 18, 2025 EQUI cs Dena Coggins 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28