Hubbard v. Google LLC

Opinion

1 Jonathan K. Levine (SBN 220289) David S. Golub (admitted pro hac vice) Elizabeth C. Pritzker (SBN 146267) Steven L. Bloch (admitted pro hac vice) 2 Caroline C. Corbitt (SBN 305492) Ian W. Sloss (admitted pro hac vice) PRITZKER LEVINE LLP SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 3 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 184 Atlantic Street 4 Emeryville, CA 94608 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 5 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 jkl@pritzkerlevine.com dgolub@sgtlaw.com 6 ecp@pritzkerlevine.com sbloch@sgtlaw.com ccc@pritzkerlevine.com isloss@sgtlaw.com 7

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes and Subclasses 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION

12 C.H., a minor, by and through their guardian ad Case No. 5:19-cv-07016-BLF 13 litem NICHOLE HUBBARD; E.J., N.J., A.J., and 14 L.J., minors, by and through their guardian ad CLASS ACTION litem CARA JONES; J.A.E. and J.R.E., minors, by 15 and through their guardian ad litem JUSTIN [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING EFROS; M.W., a minor, by and through their GUARDIAN AD LITEMS 16 guardian ad litem RENEE GILMORE; A.G., a minor, by and through their guardian ad litem JAY Hon. Beth Labson Freeman 17 GOODWIN; C.D, a minor, by and through their 18 guardian ad litem BOBBI DISHMAN; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v.

21 GOOGLE LLC; YOUTUBE LLC; CARTOON 22 NETWORK, INC.; CARTOON NETWORK STUDIOS, INC.; CHUCHU TV STUDIOS; 23 DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC; DREAMWORKS ANIMATION TELEVISION, 24 LLC; HASBRO, INC.; HASBRO STUDIOS LLC; MATTEL, INC.; POCKETWATCH, INC.; 25 REMKA, INC.; RTR PRODUCTION LLC; AND 26 RFR ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

27 Defendants. 1 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Application to Appoint Guardian Ad Litems 2 || and all supporting declarations. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to 3 || take proper measures to protect a minor during litigation, including appointing a guardian ad litem 4 || for a minor without a duly appointed representative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). “The decision to appoint 5 guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c) is normally left to the sound discretion of the trial court[.]” 6 || Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). ‘“When there is no conflict of interest, the 7 || guardian ad litem appointment is usually made on ex parte application [.]”’ Student A v. Berkeley 8 || Unified School District, Case No. 17-cv-02510-MEJ, 2017 WL 2171254, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 9 || 2017) (citations omitted). There are no special requirements for the person acting as guardian ad 10 || litem, and the main focus is furthering the best interests of the minor. Kulya y. City and County of 11 || San Francisco, No. C 06-06539 JSW, 2007 WL 760776, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007). 12 The Court finds that appointing guardian ad litems as requested by Plaintiffs is appropriate: 13 || the applicants have a strong interest in their children’s welfare, are willing and able to pursue this 14 || action on behalf of their children, have no conflicts of interest, and are acting in good faith. The 15 || Court makes the following appointments: 16 e NICHOLE HUBBARD on behalf of C.H.; 17 e CARA JONES on behalf of E.J., N.J., A.J., and L.J.; 18 e JUSTIN EFROS on behalf of J.A.E. and J.R.E.; 19 e RENEE GILMORE on behalf of M.W.; 20 e JAY GOODWIN on behalf A.G.; and 21 e BOBBI DISHMAN on behalf of C.D. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9,202] avon Lom han M □□ 26 HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 27 28