J.F. v. San Diego County Unified School

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 2, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02495
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 J.F., a minor, individually and on behalf of Case No.: 19-CV-2495-CAB-LL a proposed class, 9 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR Plaintiff, 10 APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD v. LITEM 11

SAN DIEGO COUNTY UNIFIED 12 SCHOOL DISTRICT, [Doc. No. 3] 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter is before the Court on a petition by Alexandra Feiles and Aron Feiles to 16 be appointed as guardian ad litem for minor plaintiff J.F. As one district court explained: 17 [A] guardian ad litem is not a general guardian. See, e.g., Bacon v. Mandell, 18 No. 10–5506, 2012 WL 4105088, at *14 n. 21 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2012). A general guardian is “[a] guardian who has general care and control of the 19 ward’s person and estate.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). A 20 guardian ad litem, on the other hand, is “[a] guardian, [usually] a lawyer, appointed by the court to appear in a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent or 21 minor party.” Id. “Ad litem” means “[f]or the purposes of the suit; pending 22 the suit.” Id.; cf., e.g., Brown v. Alexander, No. 13–01451, 2015 WL 1744331, at *7 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) (“[T]he rules permitting a court to appoint a 23 guardian ad litem exist for precisely the situation in which the child’s interests 24 are best served if he or she is represented by someone other than a custodial parent or other general guardian.”). 25 AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1051-52 (E.D. Cal. 2015). The 26 appointment of a guardian ad litem, therefore, “is more than a mere formalism.” Id. 27 (quoting United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cty., 28 1 || State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986)). The cursory petition currently before 2 court, meanwhile, treats it as such and is therefore denied. 3 The sole grounds stated in the petition for Petitioners’ appointment are that they are 4 ||J.F.’s parents and are responsible adults, and that J.F. resides with them. Yet, the petition 5 states that J.F. does not have a general guardian. If J.F. resides with Petitioners, who 6 || are his parents, and they are not his general guardians, further information is needed about 7 || J.F.’s living arrangements. If, on the other hand, Petitioners have custody of J.F. and care 8 J.F.’s needs, it is unclear how they are not J.F.’s general guardians who could sue on 9 || J.F.’s behalf under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A). See Doe ex rel. Sisco v. 10 || Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 11 ||(E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (holding that parents’ application for appointment as guardian 12 litem was unnecessary, noting that “Rule 17(c)(1)(A) permits a ‘general guardian’ to 13 ||sue in federal court on behalf of a minor, and a parent is a guardian who may so □□□□□□□□ 14 || G@nternal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d at 1051- 15 16 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED WITHOUT 17 || PREJUDICE. J.P. may re-file the petition with citation to legal authority and explanation 18 ||as to why appointment of his parents with whom he resides as guardians ad litem is 19 ||necessary and appropriate in this case, including relevant authority concerning 20 || appointment of guardians ad litem in a putative class action.’ 21 It is SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: January 2, 2020 € 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 ' That this case is brought as a putative class action raises additional issues concerning Petitioners’ ability to serve as guardians ad litem for J.F. or for the class.