Tiggs v. County of San Joaquin

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02163
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AISHA JAMILAH TIGGS, et al. No. 2:22-cv-02163-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING SEQUOIA BROWN’S 13 v. APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFF 14 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, N.C. 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 25) 16 17 This matter is before the court on the application of non-party Sequoia Brown for 18 appointment as guardian ad litem of her son, Plaintiff N.C.1 (Doc. No. 25.) No opposition to the 19 pending application has been filed. For the reason explained below, the court will grant the 20 application and appoint Sequoia Brown as Plaintiff N.C.’s guardian ad litem. 21 Under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor or an incompetent 22 person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a 23 guardian ad litem.” “The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 24 order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. 25 P. 17(c)(2). A representative of a minor or incompetent person may sue or defend on behalf of the 26 1 The docket in this case erroneously lists Sequoia Brown as a named plaintiff in this action. 27 However, the complaint’s caption and the complaint only refer to Sequoia Brown as a proposed guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 1 at 1, 3.) Accordingly, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to 28 correct the docket. 1 minor or incompetent person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 2 The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. United States v. 3 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 4 (9th Cir. 1986). A court shall take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests 5 of the individual during the litigation. Id. The guardian need not possess special qualifications, 6 but he must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to 7 litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting 8 Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990)). 9 In this district, Local Rule 202(a) further provides, in pertinent part: 10 Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor . . . the attorney 11 representing the minor or incompetent person shall present . . . a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or 12 . . . a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or 13 incompetent person. 14 L.R. 202(a) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). Local Rule 202 also requires disclosure of the 15 attorney’s interest, specifically requiring the following: 16 When the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the 17 attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of 18 action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has 19 received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount. 20 21 L.R. 202(c). 22 The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion 23 of the trial court.” 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 804. Fit parents are presumed to act in the 24 best interests of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). However, “if the 25 parent has an actual or potential conflict of interest with [their] child, the parent has no right to 26 control or influence the child’s litigation.” Molesky for J.M. v. Carillo, No. 1:22-cv-1567-ADA- 27 CDB, 2022 WL 17584396, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022) (quoting Williams v. Super. Ct. of San 28 Diego, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 50 (2007)). 1 The proposed guardian ad litem, Sequoia Brown, is the mother of Plaintiff N.C. (Doc. 25 2 | at {[3.) The application states Sequoia Brown has no interest potentially adverse to Plaintiff N.C. 3 | and she consents to the appointment. (Doc. Nos. 25 at 5, 7; 25-1.) Based on those 4 | representations, the court finds Sequoia Brown to be an appropriate guardian ad litem for Plaintiff 5 | N.C. and the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) have been satisfied. 6 The application also meets the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). In a declaration filed in 7 | support of the pending application, Plaintiffs’ counsel Sanjay S. Schmidt declares he was retained 8 | to represent Plaintiffs on a pro bono basis. (Doc. No. 26 at 5.) Counsel Schmidt states his office 9 | has also incurred substantial case costs, which he has decided also to provide to Plaintiffs on a pro 10 | bono basis. Ud. at | 8.) Counsel Schmidt asserts he did not become involved in this case at the 11 | instance of Defendant County of San Joaquin or any other party against whom the causes of 12 | actions are asserted, and he does not stand in any relationship with any of the parties or attorneys 13 } in this lawsuit. Ud. at J 7.) 14 Accordingly: 15 1. The application for the appointment of Sequoia Brown as guardian ad litem for 16 Plaintiff N.C. (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED; and 17 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the docket to reflect that Sequoia 18 Brown is not a named plaintiff in this action. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 2 | Dated: _December 30, 2024 DUC Dena Coggins 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28