E.T. v. San Diego Unified School District

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00028
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 E.T., by and through her Guardian Ad Case No.: 25-cv-00028-AGS-MMP Litem, 11 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 12 PETITION FOR ORDER FOR v. APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD 13 LITEM SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL 14 DISTRICT, [ECF No. 4] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is minor Plaintiff E.T.’s Petition for Order for Appointment 19 of Guardian Ad Litem. [ECF No. 4.] Plaintiff requests the Court appoint her guardians, 20 Kallie T. and Mark T.,1 as her guardians ad litem. [Id.] For the reasons set forth below, the 21 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s petition. 22 Plaintiff is fifteen years old, and she resides in San Diego. [ECF Nos. 4 at 1, 1 at 2.] 23 Plaintiff filed suit against San Diego Unified School District under the Individuals with 24 Disabilities Education and Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. [ECF No. 1 at 1.] 25 Plaintiff is not represented by a general guardian under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 27 28 1 17(c)(1). [ECF No. 4 at 2.] 2 An individual’s capacity to sue is determined by the law of his or her domicile. Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). Under California law, an individual under the age of eighteen is a 4 minor. Cal. Fam. Code § 6500. A minor may not enforce his or her rights by civil action 5 except through a guardian or guardian ad litem. Cal. Fam. Code § 6601; Cal. Civ. Proc. 6 Code § 372(a). 7 District courts have “a special duty to safeguard the interests of minor plaintiffs.” 8 See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011). District courts “must 9 appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or 10 incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). The 11 purpose of Rule 17(c)’s guardian ad litem provision “is to protect an incompetent person’s 12 interests in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit.” Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1138 13 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014)). While 14 “natural bonds of affection” generally “lead parents to act in the best interests of their 15 children,” the Court should consider whether the interests of a minor plaintiff and potential 16 guardian ad litem diverge, even if that potential guardian ad litem is a parent. Troxel v. 17 Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372(b)(1). 18 “When there is a potential conflict between a perceived parental responsibility and 19 an obligation to assist the court in achieving a just and speedy determination of the action, 20 a court has the right to select a guardian ad litem who is not a parent if that guardian would 21 best protect the child’s interests.” Williams v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 13, 23 (Cal. 22 Ct. App. 2007) (citation omitted). “[I]f the parent has an actual or potential conflict of 23 interest with his child, the parent has no right to control or influence the child’s litigation.” 24 Id. 25 In support of her petition, Plaintiff submitted declarations from Kallie. T. and Mark 26 T. Through these declarations, Kallie T. and Mark T. consent to act as guardians ad litem 27 in this action, state Plaintiff is unable to prosecute this matter without appointment of a 28 guardian, and state there is no conflict of interest between the prospective guardians ad 1 || litem and Plaintiff. [ECF No. 4 at 3-4.] From the Complaint, the Court gleans that Kallie 2 ||T. and Mark T. are Plaintiff's parents. [ECF No. | at 2.] 3 Plaintiff, as a minor, does indeed require a guardian ad litem to proceed with 4 litigation, so the Court must determine Kallie T. and Mark T.’s suitability for the role. 5 || While the Court has limited information about Kallie T. and Mark T., this action was 6 || brought to support Plaintiff's right to a free and appropriate education. [ECF No. | at 2.] 7 || Specifically, the Complaint disputes the adequacy of Plaintiff's individualized education 8 (EP) and Defendant’s IEP process as applied to Plaintiff. [ECF No. 1.] Though the 9 || Complaint seeks tuition retmbursement and attorney’s fees and costs, this action primarily 10 |}concerns equitable relief related to Plaintiff's education. [ECF No. | at 13—14.] On these 11 || facts, the Court does not see a conflict between Plaintiff's interests and the interests of 12 || Kallie T. and Mark T. If a conflict becomes apparent, the Court reserves the right to appoint 13 |} an independent guardian ad litem at that time. 14 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Petition for Order for Appointment of Guardian 15 || Ad Litem [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: March 12, 2025 Wyble th. tar 18 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT 19 United States Magistrate Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28