Guy v. Lorenzen

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DEOVANTE L. GUY, by and through Case No. 20-cv-02027-BAS-BLM Guardian Ad Litem for Deovante Guy, 12 Quintasia Walker, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ Plaintiff, REDIRECTING THE SETTLEMENT 14 v. FUNDS AND REMOVING MATTHEW LORENZEN., et. al, GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF 16 Defendants. DEOVANTE L. GUY (ECF No. 124) 17

19 Following the Court’s Order Approving Payment Allocation Stipulation (ECF No. 20 123), Plaintiff Deovante L. Guy and Defendants Matthew Lorenzen and the City of San 21 Diego filed a Joint Motion for Order Redirecting the Issuance of Settlement Funds and 22 Removing Quintasia Walker as Guardian Ad Litem of Deovante L. Guy (“Joint Motion”). 23 (ECF No. 124.) For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS Parties’ Joint Motion. 24

25 BACKGROUND 26 On May 13, 2024, the Court approved Plaintiff’s petition for an order approving the 27 settlement and settlement schedule. (ECF No. 123.) The Court thereby ordered a check 28 1 with settlement funds of $4,782,754.44 made payable to THE DEOVANTE GUY 2 SPECIAL NEED TRUST to be deposited in a special needs trust account in a federally 3 insured deposit institution. (See ECF Nos. 120 at 4, 123.) The Court also had ordered a 4 check in the amount of $101,151.35 to be made payable to Quintasia Walker Guardian Ad 5 Litem (“Guardian”) for the benefit of Deovante L. Guy to be deposited in a blocked account 6 at a federally insured deposit institution. (See ECF Nos. 122 at 1, 123.) 7 On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff Deovonte L. Guy and Defendants Matthew Lorenzen and 8 the City of San Diego submitted their Joint Motion. (ECF No. 124.) As Plaintiff’s 9 Guardian, Quintasia Walker is responsible for facilitating the aforementioned monetary 10 transfers. (Id. at 2.) Though Ms. Walker had received and signed for a check in the amount 11 of $4,681,603.09 issued by the City of San Diego on May 31, 2024, she has since been 12 unable comply with the Court orders to deposit that money allegedly because she is 13 currently incarcerated at the West Valley Detention Center in San Bernandino County. (Id. 14 at 3.) Because she is incarcerated, Ms. Walker is also restricted from depositing the 15 $101,151.35 check in a federally insured deposit institution. (Id. at 4.) 16 18 A trial court can exercise its discretion to remove a guardian ad litem if the guardian 19 ad litem has improperly represented the incompetent party. Robbins v. Mscripts, LLC, No. 20 23-CV-01381-LB, 2023 WL 4205773, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2023). More specifically, 21 the court may remove a guardian ad litem if she acts contrary to the best interests of the 22 minor or incompetent plaintiff, has a conflict of interest with the minor or incompetent 23 plaintiff, or demonstrates an inability or refusal to act. See Elliott v. Versa CIC, L.P., 328 24 F.R.D. 554, 556 (S.D. Cal. 2018). Having reviewed the Joint Motion (ECF No. 124), the 25 Court agrees and finds that Quintasia Walker is physically restricted from making the 26 court-ordered deposits due to her incarceration and should be removed as Plaintiff’s 27 Guardian. The Court also approves Parties’ stipulated payment allocations. (See ECF Nos. 28 120, 122, 123, 124.) l 3 For the foregoing reasons, Parties’ Joint Motion for Order Redirecting the Issuance 4 ||of Settlement Funds and Removing Quintasia Walker as Guardian Ad Litem of Deovante 5 || L. Guy (ECF No. 124) is GRANTED. 7 ~~ 8 || DATED: October 1, 2025 atta Bahar 9 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28