Rosalia v. Hayward

N.D. California

Rosalia v. Hayward

DecidedFebruary 11, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-00380

StatusUnknown

This text of Rosalia v. Hayward (Rosalia v. Hayward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosalia v. Hayward, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANN ROSALIA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00380-VC Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Vv. PREJUDICE MOTION TO REMOVE CITY OF HAYWARD, et al., TEND GUARDIAN AT Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 28

The motion to remove and replace A.R.’s guardian ad litem is denied without prejudice. Federal courts may issue appropriate orders “to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). The Court has a “duty to ensure that the guardian ad litem will represent the best interests” of a minor. Brown v. Alexander, 2015 WL 7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). With that obligation in mind, the petition to appoint Wendy Smith does not sufficiently detail why she is suited to represent A.R.’s interests in this litigation. It provides only her name, and contains no information suggesting that she is equipped to protect A.R. The petitioner may submit a renewed motion within 14 days of this order, containing, at a minimum, “a brief explanation of why” she “would be suitable” to be appointed guardian ad litem. Bhatia v. Corrigan, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2007). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2022 VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANN ROSALIA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00380-VC Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Vv. PREJUDICE MOTION TO REMOVE CITY OF HAYWARD, et al., TEND GUARDIAN AT Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 28

The motion to remove and replace A.R.’s guardian ad litem is denied without prejudice. Federal courts may issue appropriate orders “to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). The Court has a “duty to ensure that the guardian ad litem will represent the best interests” of a minor. Brown v. Alexander, 2015 WL 7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). With that obligation in mind, the petition to appoint Wendy Smith does not sufficiently detail why she is suited to represent A.R.’s interests in this litigation. It provides only her name, and contains no information suggesting that she is equipped to protect A.R. The petitioner may submit a renewed motion within 14 days of this order, containing, at a minimum, “a brief explanation of why” she “would be suitable” to be appointed guardian ad litem. Bhatia v. Corrigan, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2007). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2022 VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rosalia v. Hayward, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosalia-v-hayward-cand-2022.