Watkins v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 L.T., a minor, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00142-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 United States of America, 1S Defendant. 16 17 This is a medical negligence action related to the birth of L.T., a two-year-old minor. 18 | Latisha Watkins, L.T.’s mother, moves to be appointed as L.T.’s guardian ad litem. See generally 19 | Mot., ECF No. 12. The United States does not oppose that request. ECF No. 14. 20 “A minor... who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue... by a 21 | guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 22 | order—to protect a minor... who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). A 23 | guardian ad litem must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf 24 | [s]he seeks to litigate.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990); Coal. of Clergy, 25 | Lawyers, & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir. 2002). The court considers 26 | whether the proposed guardian ad litem has an “impermissible conflict of interest” with the minor 27 | plaintiff and the proposed guardian’s “experience, objectivity, and expertise, . . . or previous 28 | relationship” with the minor plaintiff.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042,

1 | 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Watson v. Cty. of 2 | Santa Clara, 468 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (requiring “a written declaration that 3 | the proposed guardian ad litem is independent and would act in the best interests of the minors”). 4 Based on Watkins’s declaration, ECF No. 12, and a review of the complaint, ECF No. 1, 5 | the court concludes that Watkins does not face any conflict of interest that might prevent her from 6 | representing L.T. She is also an appropriate representative of her minor child. Parents are 7 | commonly appointed as guardians ad litem of their minor children. Anthem Life Ins. Co. v. 8 | Olguin, No. 06-01165, 2007 WL 1390672, at *2—3 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2007); see also Fontalvo ex 9 | rel. Fontalvo v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., No. 13-0331, 2014 WL 5092742, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 10 | 2014) (citing Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001)). 11 The motion to appoint Watkins as guardian ad litem (ECF No. 12) is granted. 13 DATED: August 30, 2022. 14 ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE