E.M. v. California Department of Education

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

7 E.M., et al., Case No. 24-cv-07397-NW 8 Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD v. LITEM 10 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Re: ECF No. 55 11 EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. 12 13 As discussed in the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss, E.M. is minor 14 and may only bring suit if a guardian ad litem has been appointed to represent her interests. See 15 Order at 6-7, ECF No. 54; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). E.M. now asks the Court to appoint 16 her mother, Elisa Schweizer, as her guardian ad litem. 17 While Schweizer is a plaintiff in this action, the Court finds that appointing Schweizer to 18 the role would still ensure that E.M.’s interests are being met. See Mot. to Appoint Guardian ad 19 Litem, ECF No. 55. Schweizer and E.M. also have no conflicts between their claims. Id. at 2. 20 Schweizer’s appointment as guardian ad litem is therefore appropriate. See J.M. v. Liberty Union 21 High Sch. Dist., No. 16-cv-05225-LB, 2016 WL 4942999, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2016) 22 (“Generally, when a minor is represented by a parent who is a party to the lawsuit and who has the 23 24 25 26 27 1 same interests as the child there is no inherent conflict of interest.) (quoting Burke v. Smith, 252 2 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: August 1, 2025

6 Noél Wise 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] a 12 «44

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28