Hart v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA

Opinion

1 2 3 6 AMY HART, et al., 7 Case No. 23-cv-01610-JCS Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO APPOINT KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., USA, GUARDIAN AD LITEM 10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 4 11

12 13 14 This action arises from a rollover accident in which two minor children (C.C. and P.H.) 15 and their mothers (Amanda Coombs and Amy Hart) were injured. The parties have reached a 16 settlement and intend to seek approval of the compromise of the minors’ claims in this action. 17 Plaintiffs have filed petitions asking the Court to appoint Amanda Coombs as guardian ad litem 18 for her minor child, C.C., and Amy Hart as guardian ad litem for her minor child, P.H. (“the 19 Petitions”). “Generally, when a minor is represented by a parent who is a party to the lawsuit and 20 who has the same interests as the child there is no inherent conflict of interest.” Burke v. Smith, 21 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir.2001) (cited with approval in Phelan v. Brentwood Union Sch. 22 Dist., No. C 12-00465 LB, 2012 WL 909294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (appointing parent 23 as guardian ad litem for minor child even though both asserted claims in the action based on the 24 same incident)). In the Petitions, however, Plaintiffs state as to both proposed guardians ad litem: 25 “She has interest adverse to that of the minor.” Dkt. 3, 4. Therefore, the Petitions are DENIED 26 without prejudice to refiling and correcting what may be a typographical error. Alternatively, 27 Plaintiffs may file amended petitions that address the adverse interests of the proposed guardians 1 interests. 3 4 Dated: April 5, 2023 5 J PH C. SPERO 6 nited States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14 © 15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28