Saxton v. County of Sonoma

N.D. California

Saxton v. County of Sonoma

DecidedMarch 30, 2023

Docket3:21-cv-09499

StatusUnknown

This text of Saxton v. County of Sonoma (Saxton v. County of Sonoma) 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

Saxton v. County of Sonoma, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHELLE SAXTON, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09499-SI 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF 9 Vv. GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND FILING OF DECLARATION 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., 11 Defendants. a 3 In reviewing the docket, it has come to the Court’s attention that Michelle Saxton has not

filed a motion for appointment of guardian ad litem of M.J., nor has Saxton filed an affidavit or 14 declaration pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.32, which is required in survivorship 15 actions. See Reyes v. Cnty. of Alameda, No. 20-CV-03971-DMR, 2020 WL 5107460, at *3 (N.D. 16 Cal. Aug. 31, 2020) (discussing requirements under California law for § 1983 survivorship action); 17

see also Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended Z 18 (Nov. 24, 1998) (“The party seeking to bring a survival action bears the burden of demonstrating 19 that a particular state’s law authorizes a survival action and that the plaintiff meets that state’s 20 requirements for bringing a survival action.”’). 21 The Court directs Saxton to file a motion for appointment of guardian ad litem, which can 22 include the information and material required by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32, no later than April 23 7, 2023. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. WU tee 26 Dated: March 30, 2023 27 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 28

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHELLE SAXTON, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09499-SI 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF 9 Vv. GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND FILING OF DECLARATION 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., 11 Defendants. a 3 In reviewing the docket, it has come to the Court’s attention that Michelle Saxton has not

filed a motion for appointment of guardian ad litem of M.J., nor has Saxton filed an affidavit or 14 declaration pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.32, which is required in survivorship 15 actions. See Reyes v. Cnty. of Alameda, No. 20-CV-03971-DMR, 2020 WL 5107460, at *3 (N.D. 16 Cal. Aug. 31, 2020) (discussing requirements under California law for § 1983 survivorship action); 17

see also Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended Z 18 (Nov. 24, 1998) (“The party seeking to bring a survival action bears the burden of demonstrating 19 that a particular state’s law authorizes a survival action and that the plaintiff meets that state’s 20 requirements for bringing a survival action.”’). 21 The Court directs Saxton to file a motion for appointment of guardian ad litem, which can 22 include the information and material required by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32, no later than April 23 7, 2023. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. WU tee 26 Dated: March 30, 2023 27 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Saxton v. County of Sonoma, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxton-v-county-of-sonoma-cand-2023.