J.R. v. The Classical Academy, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01808
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 J.R., a minor, by and through his Case No.: 24-cv-01808-AJB-AHG Guardian ad Litem, Terresa Rice, and 13 TERRESA RICE, ORDER SETTING HEARING 14 Plaintiffs, (Doc. No. 30) 15 v. 16 THE CLASSICAL ACADEMY, INC., 17 Defendant. 18

19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for dismissal. (Doc. No. 30.) The instant 21 action seeks judicial review of a special education administrative due process decision 22 regarding Plaintiff J.R., who at the initiation of litigation was seventeen years old, and 23 recovery of administrative attorneys’ fees. (Complaint (“Compl.”), Doc. No. 1.) Due to the 24 competency of Plaintiff J.R. at the commencement of this action, the Court requires 25 additional information to address the instant joint motion for dismissal. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 The Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff J.R. is a seventeen-year-old student who is 28 diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, a 1 depressive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and various learning disorders[,]” and 2 was “diagnos[ed with a] mild to moderate neurocognitive disorder related to a traumatic 3 brain injury” (“TBI”) after sustaining a “head injury at school caused by bullying[.]” 4 (Compl. ¶ 10.) Further, Plaintiffs state that “[u]pon [J.R.’s] enrollment, Defendant TCA 5 [(The Classical Academy)] as on notice that J.R. required an IEP, and that his IEP required 6 him to have 1:1 aide supervision in the form of an aide at all times, including during 7 lunch[,]” along with “specialized academic instruction, speech therapy, occupational 8 therapy and counseling services.” (Id. ¶ 13.) On October 10, 2024, Terresa Rice filed an ex 9 parte application for appointment as Plaintiff J.R.’s guardian ad litem due to his age. (Doc. 10 No. 5.) The Court granted the motion and appointed Terresa Rice as guardian ad litem on 11 October 11, 2024. (Doc. No. 6.) 12 The parties filed an initial notice of settlement on June 10, 2025, (Doc. No. 22), and 13 then again on August 29, 2025, (Doc. No. 28). In the latest notice of settlement, the parties 14 refer to Plaintiff J.R. as “a minor with disabilities, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, 15 TERRESA RICE[.]” (Id. at 2.) However, the parties also state that “[o]n July 13, 2025, 16 Plaintiff J.R. reached the age of majority, thus alleviating any need for a motion to approve 17 the settlement pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1.a.” (Id. ¶ 5.) 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 District courts have a special duty to safeguard the interests of litigants who are 20 minors or otherwise incompetent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) (requiring courts to “appoint 21 a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent 22 person who is unrepresented in an action.”); see also United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 23 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) requires a court to take whatever 24 measures it deems proper to protect an incompetent person during litigation.”). 25 In keeping with this duty, this District’s Civil Local Rules provide that “[n]o action 26 by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, or in which a minor or incompetent has an 27 interest, will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated 28 without court order or judgment.” CivLR 17.1.a. 1 “Capacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . for an individual who is not acting in 2 a representative capacity[] by the law of the individual’s domicile[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 17(b)(1). 4 In California, “a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions” includes: 5 (A) A person who lacks capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the action or proceeding. 6 (B) A person who lacks capacity to assist the person's attorney in the 7 preparation of the case. 8 (C) A person for whom a conservator may be appointed pursuant to Section 1801 of the Probate Code. 9 10 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372(a)(4).1 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 Although Plaintiff Terresa Rice sought appointment as Plaintiff J.R.’s guardian ad 13 litem solely on the basis of his age, the pleadings suggest Plaintiff J.R.’s disability may be 14 severe enough to impact his competency as an adult. See AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 15 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1046 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (“Because these facts raised substantial 16 questions about General Yeager’s competence, the court concluded it was bound to 17 exercise its ‘legal obligation’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) to consider 18 whether the appointment of a guardian or some other order was necessary to protect his 19 interests in this case.”); see, e.g., Fletcher for Rose v. Fresno Food Concept, Inc., No. 20 122CV00180AWIBAM, 2022 WL 815822, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2022) (appointing a 21 guardian ad litem for an adult with a TBI). Nothing before the Court addresses Plaintiff 22 J.R.’s competency or requests termination of Plaintiff Terresa Rice’s role as guardian ad 23 litem. 24 ///

25 26 1 Section 1801 of the Probate Code states, subject to some limitations, that a conservator may be appointed for a person who (a) “is unable to provide properly for his or her personal needs for physical 27 health, food, clothing, or shelter,” (b) “is substantially unable to manage his or her own financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence,” (c) qualifies under both (a) and (b), or (d) “for a developmentally 28 1 Accordingly, under the circumstances, the Court requires additional information to 2 determine whether dismissal of the instant action requires approval of the settlement of 3 || Plaintiff J.R.’s claims. To that end, the Court hereby ORDERS: 4 1. No later than October 15, 2025, Plaintiffs are to file a supplemental brief 5 || addressing Plaintiff J.R.’s competency. The brief should not exceed three pages, exclusive 6 ||exhibits, and may be supported evidence such as a declaration or report by a treating 7 || physician.” 8 2. A hearing on the issue of competency is SET for 2:00 PM on 9 || October 20, 2025, in Courtroom 4A. See J. Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. § II. 10 3. Should the Court determine that Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 11 || Procedure and Civil Local Rule 17.1 apply to the settlement of Plaintiff J.R.’s claims, the 12 ||parties should be prepared to file a joint motion for settlement approval addressing the 13 |/requirements of Civil Local Rule 17.1.b, along with a copy of the settlement agreement, 14 later than October 27, 2025. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: October 3, 2025 © ¢ 7 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiffs may file a corresponding motion to file portions of the supplement under seal. See J. Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. § IV.