Karen Jacob, et al. v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-07161
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 Case No. 25-cv-07161-LJC

8 KAREN JACOB, et al., ORDER GRANTING IFP 9 Plaintiffs, APPLICATIONS AND ORDERING SERVICE; GRANTING PETITIONS TO 10 v. APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM; DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANONYMOUSLY 12 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 5-9, 14

14 I. IFP Application The plaintiffs in this case are Karen Jacob and her two minor children, M.J. and E.J. 1 15 Plaintiff Karen Jacob filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and the Court 16 ordered Plaintiffs M.J. and E.J. to file their own IFP applications in order to assess whether all 17 plaintiffs would qualify to proceed IFP. ECF Nos. 2, 4 at 1-2. M.J. and E.J. have now filed their 18 IFP applications. ECF Nos. 5, 6. Sufficient cause having been shown, Plaintiffs’ applications to 19 proceed IFP are GRANTED. 20 At least some of Plaintiffs’ claims do not appear at this time to be subject to dismissal 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Any defect in Plaintiffs’ Complaint would be better addressed on 22 adversarial briefing, and this Order is without prejudice to any argument Defendant might raise 23 after it is served and appears. The Clerk is therefore instructed to issue the summons, and either 24 the U.S. Marshal or the Clerk is instructed to serve Defendant with the summons and the 25 Complaint. 26 27 1 The initial Case Management Conference, currently set for November 20, 2025, is 2 continued to December 18, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. 3 II. Guardian Ad Litem Petitions 4 Plaintiffs have also filed petitions to have Karen Jacob appointed as a guardian ad litem for 5 M.J. and E.J. ECF Nos. 7, 8. “When there is no conflict of interest, the guardian ad litem 6 appointment is usually made on ex parte application and involves minimal exercise of discretion 7 by the trial court.” Kulya v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. C 06-06539JSW, 2007 WL 8 760776, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007) (citing In re Marriage of Caballero, 27 Cal. App. 4th 9 1139, 1149 (1994)). “Generally, when a minor is represented by a parent who is a party to the 10 lawsuit and who has the same interests as the child there is no inherent conflict of interest.” J. M. 11 v. Liberty Union High Sch. Dist., No. 16-cv-05225, 2016 WL 4942999, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 12 2016) (quotations omitted). Ms. Jacob declares that she is M.J. and E.J.’s mother, that both are 13 minors and parties to this action, and that she is not aware of any actual or potential conflicts of 14 interest between her and her children. See ECF Nos. 7, 8. This is sufficient to establish that Ms. 15 Jacob would be a suitable guardian ad litem for her children. The Court accordingly GRANTS the 16 petitions at ECF Nos. 7 and 8 and appoints Karen Jacob as the guardian ad litem for M.J. and E.J. 17 III. Request to Proceed Anonymously 18 Plaintiff Karen Jacob filed a request that she be permitted to proceed anonymously, 19 explaining that her family’s “situation is such that an open public disclosure could cause greater 20 suffering, stress, anxiety” and that they “suffered from … ongoing persecution” in their home 21 country, which compelled them to seek asylum. ECF No. 9. “The normal presumption in 22 litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi 23 Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). However, a “party may preserve his or her 24 anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity 25 outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s 26 identity.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 27 2000). Allowing a plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously is appropriate: harm (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter 1 of sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal 2 conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution. 3 Id. (citations omitted). When a party requests to proceed pseudonymously due to threats of 4 retaliation, courts evaluate: “(1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the 5 anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Jd. 6 || (citations omitted). “District courts have broad discretion to determine whether a plaintiff may 7 proceed anonymously.” M.J.R. v. United States, No. 23-cv-05821, 2023 WL 7563746, at *1 (N.D. 8 Cal. Nov. 14, 2023) (citing Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068). 9 The Court is unable to assess whether granting Ms. Jacob’s request to proceed 10 || anonymously is appropriate based on Ms. Jacob’s conclusory statement that proceeding using her 11 full name would cause her family “greater suffering, stress, and anxiety.” ECF No. 9. Ms. 12 || Jacob’s request is accordingly denied without prejudice. 13 Should Ms. Jacob wish to file a renewed motion to proceed pseudonymously, she must 14 || include sufficient facts to show that proceeding using her full name would create a reasonable risk 3 15 of “retaliatory physical or mental harm,” or that proceeding anonymously “is necessary to preserve a 16 || privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature.” Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068. 3 17 If Ms. Jacob wishes to file her renewed request under seal, she must follow the procedures set 18 forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated:November 10, 2025 21 22 LIS ISN S 23 United/States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28