PUGA v. Monterey County Department of Social & Employment Services

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-04655
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 KRIS J. PUGA, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-04655-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. APPOINT PARENTS KRIS J. PUGA AND MEGAN PUGA AS GUARDIANS 10 MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT AD LITEM FOR MINOR PLAINTIFFS OF SOCIAL & EMPLOYMENT 11 SERVICES, et al., [Re: Dkt. No. 23]

12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion to Appoint Parents Kris J. Puga and Megan 15 Puga as Guardians ad Litem for Minor Plaintiffs Pursuant to Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 16 (2000), and Related Cases. Dkt. No. 23. The Court finds this motion suitable for resolution 17 without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for September 18, 2025. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 18 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Kris J. Puga (“Puga”), individually and on behalf of his three minor children Jk.P., 21 Ja.P., and H.P., initially filed this action on June 3, 2025, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 22 for violation of their federal constitutional rights as well as an intentional infliction of emotional 23 distress tort claim. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that on or around November 28, 2023, the 24 Monterey County Department of Social & Employment Services (“Department”) “received an 25 allegation of general neglect” with respect to Plaintiff Puga’s four children. Id. ¶ 43. Puga’s 26 eldest child, N.P., had been taken to the hospital after an attempted overdose prompted by a gender 27 crisis. Id. ¶ 44. N.P. told hospital staff that he did not want to return home to his parents and 1 sometimes physically disciplined their children, and that Plaintiff Puga sometimes abused 2 substances. Id. ¶ 45. 3 Plaintiffs further allege that, following this report, a social worker spoke to three of the 4 children out of their parents’ presence and visited the parents’ home. Id. ¶ 46. The social worker 5 concluded that “[t]he allegations of general neglect . . . are deemed inconclusive.” Id. ¶ 54. The 6 social worker added an allegation of emotional abuse that was substantiated as to three of the 7 children, id. ¶ 55, and an allegation of physical abuse that was deemed inconclusive, id. ¶ 56. The 8 social worker requested that law enforcement remove the children from the parents’ custody, but 9 law enforcement refused to do so without a warrant. Id. ¶¶ 59–60. Instead, the social worker 10 placed the children with their paternal grandmother under a “safety plan” pending a hearing on 11 whether the children should be removed from their parents’ custody. Id. ¶ 61. Following the 12 hearing, the children were removed from their paternal grandmother’s home and placed into foster 13 care. Id. ¶ 63. Over a year later, the Department and the court dismissed the case and returned the 14 children to their parents’ custody. Id. ¶ 64. 15 On the same day that the Complaint was filed, Plaintiffs also filed a motion to appoint 16 Plaintiff Puga as guardian ad litem for the three minor Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 5. This motion was 17 denied without prejudice on June 5, 2025 by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi, who noted: 18 Here, the record presented indicates that Mr. Puga is competent and willing to serve as his children’s guardian ad litem. Dkt. No. 5-1. However, Mr. Puga is also a party to the 19 action, an action that is based on conduct taken by defendants in response to allegations of 20 abuse against Mr. Puga and the children’s mother. See Kulya v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 06-cv-06539-JSW, 2007 WL 760776, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007) 21 (“Clearly there is at a minimum a potential conflict of interest . . . because of the 22 allegations of abuse which form the ostensible basis for Defendants’ subsequent conduct.”); see also Erichsen v. Orange Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency, No. 13-cv-00237-GW 23 MAN, 2013 WL 645460, at *2 n.3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2013) (“Given the nature of the 24 Pending State Actions—including the allegation of parental neglect—it appears unlikely that Parents could be appointed guardians ad litem for Ariane and Zachary in this case due 25 to the possibility of a conflict of interest.”). Mr. Puga’s limited briefing in support of his 26 motion for appointment as guardian ad litem does not address whether, in view of these allegations, Mr. Puga will be able to adequately represent his children’s interests in this 27 action without conflicts. See A.H. v. Sacramento Cnty. Dep’t Child, Fam. & Adult Servs., (denying mother’s application for appointment as guardian ad litem even where she had 1 “regained custody of her children and the court dismissed the case against her . . . .”). 2 3 Dkt. No. 9 at 2–3. Plaintiff Puga filed a second request for appointment as guardian ad litem that 4 same day, which was again denied without prejudice because it was “nearly identical to his first 5 except that it include[d] two documents as to which Mr. Puga ask[ed] the Court to take judicial 6 notice: (1) a decision from the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District; and (2) minute orders 7 from Monterey County Superior Court” and failed to address the issue of whether there was an 8 actual or potential conflict of interest in the case between Plaintiff Puga and the minor Plaintiffs. 9 Dkt. No. 12 at 2. 10 Plaintiffs then declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and the case was reassigned to the 11 undersigned. Dkt. Nos. 14, 16. On June 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint 12 based largely on the same facts. Dkt. No. 18. The First Amended Complaint added Plaintiff 13 Megan Puga, who is the minor Plaintiffs’ mother. Id. Plaintiffs again asserted claims under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. ¶¶ 68–100. Plaintiff Megan 15 Puga added a claim for violation of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Id. ¶¶ 101– 16 04. All Plaintiffs added a First Amendment retaliation claim. Id. ¶¶ 105–08. Over a month later, 17 Plaintiffs filed the present motion to appoint Plaintiff Kris J. Puga and Plaintiff Megan Puga as 18 guardians ad litem for the minor Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 23. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “A minor or an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative 21 may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem— 22 or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented 23 in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). The determination of an individual’s capacity to sue is 24 made based on “the law of the individual’s domicile,” id. 17(b)(1), and in California, a minor is an 25 individual under the age of 18 years, Cal. Fam. Code § 6500. 26 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 27 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 1 “broad discretion in ruling on a guardian ad litem application.” Williams v. Superior Ct., 147 Cal. 2 App. 4th 36, 47 (2007). “In determining whether to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the 3 court must consider whether the minor and the guardian have divergent interests.” J.T. v. Antioch 4 Unified Sch. Dist., No. 18-cv-02992, 2018 WL 4334603, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2018) (citing 5 Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(b)(1)). While “there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best 6 interests of their children,” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68 (2000), “this general presumption 7 does not apply when the parent has a conflict of interest,” Williams, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 50. “[I]f 8 the parent has an actual or potential conflict of interest with his [or her] child, the parent has no 9 right to control or influence the child’s litigation.” Id. Thus, “[w]hen there is a potential conflict 10 between a perceived parental responsibility and an obligation to assist the court in achieving a just 11 and speedy determination of the action, a court has the right to select a guardian ad litem who is 12 not a parent if that guardian would best protect the child’s interests.” Id. at 49 (internal quotations 13 and citation omitted). “When there is no conflict of interest, the guardian ad litem appointment is 14 usually made on ex parte application and involves minimal exercise of discretion by the trial 15 court.” Student A v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., No. 17-cv-02510, 2017 WL 2171254, at *1 (N.D. 16 Cal. May 17, 2017) (citation omitted). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Plaintiffs Jk.P. (born in 2009), Ja.P. (born in 2012), and H.P. (born in 2020) are all under 19 eighteen years of age. Therefore, all three must conduct proceedings in this suit through a 20 guardian ad litem. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). 21 “In general, a parent who is also a party to the lawsuit is presumed to be a suitable 22 guardian ad litem, and so the court often appoints the parent as guardian ad litem upon receipt of 23 an ex parte application without exercising much discretion.” Brown v. Alexander, No. 13-cv- 24 01451, 2015 WL 7350183, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). However, courts in this Circuit have 25 questioned whether a parent might have an actual or potential conflict of interest with his child 26 when the dispute giving rise to the litigation involves allegations of abuse or neglect by the parent. 27 In Kulya v. City and County of San Francisco, for example, a father “filed a complaint for 1 behalf of himself as an individual, and on behalf of his minor son . . . as his guardian ad litem.” 2 No. 06-cv-06539, 2007 WL 760776, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007). The suit was against his city 3 as well as city police officers and social workers and related to an incident in which his child’s 4 mother took the child to a police station to file child abuse charges against the father. Id. There, 5 the Court noted that “there [wa]s at a minimum a potential conflict of interest . . . because of the 6 allegations of abuse which form the ostensible basis for Defendants’ subsequent conduct,” 7 meaning that the father was “not a suitable choice for guardian ad litem.” Id. at *2. 8 Likewise, A.H. v. Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services was 9 a lawsuit filed by a mother after the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult 10 Services removed her children from her home and placed them in foster care. No. 21-cv-00690, 11 2021 WL 4263317, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021). In that case, the court denied the mother’s 12 application to serve as guardian ad litem, citing Kulya. Id. at *3. The court noted that the denial 13 was not intended to pass judgment on the mother’s parental fitness or to suggest that the 14 allegations of maltreatment were true; rather, it indicated only that there was a potential for a 15 conflict of interest “given the underlying allegations.” Id.; see also Olivares v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, 16 No. 22-cv-00753, 2022 WL 17822497, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022) (“Here, this court 17 previously denied plaintiffs’ motion for [mother] to be appointed guardian ad litem of her 18 children, finding a potential conflict of interest given the underlying allegations concerning the 19 relationship between [mother] and her minor children and the basis of the defendants’ execution of 20 a protective custody warrant.”). 21 Judge DeMarchi previously brought these orders to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attention and 22 invited Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for appointment that addressed the concerns raised in 23 those cases. Dkt. No. 9 at 3. After Plaintiff’s counsel failed to do so in the renewed motion filed 24 on June 5, 2025, see Dkt. No. 12, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, requested reassignment to 25 a district judge, and then failed to file a new motion for appointment until prompted by the Court. 26 Plaintiffs’ third motion for appointment does contain legal argument, but it does not 27 address the concerns raised about a potential conflict of interest. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that 1 involvement . . . and without any pending investigations,” aside from a social services referral 2 dated June 17, 2025 that Plaintiffs allege to be retaliation for the filing of the present lawsuit. Dkt. 3 No. 23 at 5. Plaintiffs state that Kris J. Puga and Megan Puga “are therefore fit parents, and fit 4 parents are presumed to act for the benefit of their children.” Id. The remainder of the brief is 5 dedicated to reciting authorities on the substantive and procedural protections afforded to parents 6 under the Fourteenth Amendment. 7 The Court does not cast doubt on the liberty interests of parents in the care and custody of 8 their children. However, the narrow question before the Court on this motion for appointment is 9 whether there is “an actual or potential conflict of interest” between the parents seeking 10 appointment and their minor children. See Williams, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 50. If so, the 11 presumption in Troxel is not applicable for purposes of appointing the parents as guardians ad 12 litem for their children. Id. As explained in Williams: 13 [U]nlike the state actions that have been found to unconstitutionally interfere with a 14 parent’s fundamental rights to make child-rearing decisions, a court’s selection of a guardian ad litem does not substantially affect a parent’s control over his or her child or 15 “inject [the state] into the private realm of the family.” A guardian ad litem’s role is 16 limited to protecting the child’s interests in the litigation, and the role is closely supervised by the judge. In this limited role, a guardian ad litem does not have the authority to make 17 decisions for the child outside the scope of the litigation, even if the guardian ad litem believes the decisions are in the general best interests of the child. 18 19 Williams, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 50 (citation omitted). Denial of a parent’s desire to be appointed as 20 guardian ad litem does not infringe the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the parent where there is 21 an actual or potential conflict of interest between the parent and the child. 22 Here, despite multiple invitations to do so, Plaintiffs have not provided any argument or 23 authority contradicting the potential conflict of interest between Kris and Megan Puga and their 24 children that is apparent from the allegations in the amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 25 motion for appointment is DENIED. 26 IV. ORDER 27 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kris J. Puga and Megan 1 H.P. is DENIED. Another individual must be appointed to represent the children’s interests going 2 || forward in this litigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ORDERED to submit a new motion to appoint a 3 guardian ad litem within fourteen days of the date of this order. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: August 14, 2025

TH LABSON FREEMAN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28