Joni M. Roth v. AIG, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01124
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONI M. ROTH No. 2:24-cv-1124-TLN-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AIG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On August 28, 2025, the court granted plaintiff Joni Roth’s former attorney’s motion to 18 withdraw as counsel, leaving plaintiff pro se. (ECF No. 38.) Because plaintiff proceeds without 19 counsel, this matter is referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1). 21 This is a diversity jurisdiction case for breach of contract and fraud relating to an annuity 22 plaintiff found in a box of her late father’s documents in January of 2022. (ECF No. 1 at 8-9.) 23 Under the complaint’s allegations, plaintiff has never received any surrender payment. (Id. at 9.) 24 According to defendant, plaintiff surrendered the annuity in 2002. (ECF No. 17-1 at 3.) 25 On August 26, 2025, non-party Kelli Grande filed a “Notice and Disclosure” stating she is 26 plaintiff’s Statutory Durable Power of Attorney and suggesting plaintiff’s cognitive decline 27 warrants the need for a finding of incompetence and appointment of a guardian ad litem under 28 Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 37.) 1 Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides “[t]he court shall appoint a 2 || guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or 3 || shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent 4 || person.”! The Ninth Circuit has held a party “is entitled to a Rule 17 competency determination 5 || when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 6 || (9th Cir. 2005). 7 Kelli Grande’s recent filing states new counsel for plaintiff has yet to be retained. 8 || However, the notice does not indicate whether efforts are being made to retain new counsel, or 9 || whether the court should expect plaintiff to remain pro se. Whether new counsel will be retained 10 | for plaintiff may be relevant to the court’s determination whether there is a need for a competency 11 || hearing or any orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. 12 Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 13 1. Within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff and/or Kelli Grande shall file a status 14 report indicating what, if any, efforts are being made to retain new counsel for 15 plaintiff. 16 2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, any party may file an optional status report 17 addressing the competency issue raised in the notice filed by Kelli Grande on August 18 26, 2025. 19 | Dated: September 8, 2025 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce

21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 8, rotn2dev1124.status 24 25 %6 ' The procedure for determining competency is set by federal law, but the court looks to state law for competency standards. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1); In re County of Orange, 784 F.3d 520, 27 || 523-24 (9th Cir. 2015). Under California law, a party is incompetent if he or she lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding or is unable to assist counsel 28 | in the preparation of the case. In re Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th 1180, 1186 (2001).