Doe v. El Dorado County Office of Education

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00764
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JANE DOE, No. 2:25-cv-00764-DAD-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 EL DORADO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint guardian ad litem. ECF No. 15. The 17 motion has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). ECF No. 21. 18 The motion recites that the parties met and conferred prior to the filing of the motion, and 19 Defendant does not intend to oppose the motion. ECF No. 15 at 2. The time for filing an 20 opposition has expired, and no opposition was filed. See LR 230(c). 21 However, the motion does not contain sufficient information for the Court to rule. The 22 motion does not include information concerning the attorney’s interest required by Local Rule 23 202(c). Nor does the motion contain sufficient information for the Court to determine that 24 Plaintiff, a 24-year old woman, is “incompetent” under Rule 17. In determining competency, the 25 Court needs to apply the following standard: “In California, a party is incompetent if he or she 26 lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding, or is unable to 27 assist counsel in the preparation of the case.” Golden Gate Way, LLC v. Stewart, No. 09–cv– 28 1 |} 04458 DMR, 2012 WL 4482053, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) (citing Jn re Jessica G., 93 2 | Cal.App. 4th 1180, 1186 (2001); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 372; In re Sara D., 87 Cal.App. 4th 661, 3 || 666-67 (2001)). In determining competency, the Court may consider a “broad range of 4 || evidence” including reports from governmental agencies concerning mental disability, sworn 5 || declarations, medical records, and the court’s own observations. See AT&T Mobility v. Yeager, 6 | 143 F.Supp.3d 1042, 1050 (E.D. Cal. 2015). Plaintiffs motion is based only on the brief 7 || affidavit of her mother, which contains no meaningful detail about her cognitive condition. 8 | Plaintiff □□□ not provided any medical records, or evidence of a governmental agency relevant to 9 || competency. The complaint refers to a medical diagnosis, but the mother’s declaration does not 10 | aver to that diagnosis. As the Court’s own observations can be an important consideration, Local 11 | Rule 202(d) generally requires that the minor or allegedly incompetent person appear at the 12 | hearing unless excused for good cause. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiffs counsel shall file with the Court information to satisfy the requirements of 15 Local Rule 202(c). Additionally, Plaintiff shall file any supplemental documentary 16 materials and/or a more detailed affidavit from Plaintiff's mother to address the issues 17 raised herein. Those supplemental materials shall be filed by June 10, 2025. Defendant 18 may file any response by June 20, 2025. 19 2. The Court will hold a hearing on the motion on Thursday, July 3, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 20 At that hearing both Plaintiff and her mother, P.W., shall appear. If Plaintiff believes that 21 good cause exists to excuse her appearance, that good cause showing shall be made in the 22 supplemental materials filed by June 10, 2025. If such showing is made, the Court may 23 submit the motion without oral argument. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: May 23, 2025 26 mk 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE