Wright v. Southern Arizona Children's Advocacy Center

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Brian Wright, et al., No. CV-21-00257-TUC-JGZ

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Southern Arizona Children's Advocacy Center, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff Brian Wright filed a motion requesting the Court 16 appoint him as L.A.W.’s guardian ad litem for all purposes in this case. (Doc. 224.) The 17 Court granted the motion. (Doc. 229.) DCS Defendants filed a response in opposition on 18 the same day. (Doc. 234.) The Court stated it would reconsider the motion after Wright 19 filed a reply to the DCS Defendants’ response. (Doc. 236.) On September 18, 2023, Wright 20 filed a reply, (Doc. 240), and Wright and L.A.W. filed a motion requesting approval of 21 L.A.W.’s settlement with the Town Defendants, (Doc. 239). On September 19, 2023, the 22 Court held a status conference, during which the parties stated they had no objection to 23 approval of the settlement between L.A.W. and the Town Defendants without the 24 appointment of a guardian ad litem. (Doc. 243.) Based on the parties’ representations, 25 Wright withdrew his motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for L.A.W. (Id.) Pending before 26 the Court is Plaintiffs Wright and L.A.W.’s Motion for Order Approving Compromise of 27 Minor L.A.W.’s Claims Against the Town Defendants (Doc. 239). For the reasons that 28 follow, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion and approve the settlement without 1 appointing a guardian ad litem. 2 A minor who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend 3 or guardian ad litem. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). “The court must appoint a guardian ad 4 litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who 5 is unrepresented in an action.” Id. Whether to appoint a guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c) 6 is usually left to the sound discretion of the district court. Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 7 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). Rule 17(c)’s purpose is to protect a minor or incompetent person’s 8 interests in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit. Id. Rule 17 does not mandate the 9 appointment of a guardian ad litem. Id. Rather, the district court may fulfill the purpose of 10 Rule 17(c) by issuing another order that sufficiently protects a minor’s interests. Id. 11 The Court concludes that Brian Wright and counsel Michael Moore adequately 12 represent L.A.W.’s interests. Brian Wright, as L.A.W.’s father and next friend, may sue on 13 L.A.W.’s behalf. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). And a district court need not appoint a 14 guardian ad litem when a minor is adequately represented by a parent. See Prudential Ins. 15 Co. of Am. v. Remington, No. 2:12-CV-02821-GEB, 2013 WL 3070629, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 16 June 17, 2013) (collecting cases). Further, although a parent cannot bring an action on 17 behalf of a minor child without retaining counsel, see Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 18 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997), Wright has retained counsel Michael Moore to represent 19 L.A.W.’s interests in this action. What is more, all parties stated they had no objection to 20 the Court approving the settlement between L.A.W. and the Town Defendants. (Doc. 242.) 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiff L.A.W., by and through 23 Brian Wright, as the father and next friend of minor L.A.W., has demonstrated in his 24 Motion and attached documents that the terms of the settlement of L.A.W.’s claims against 25 Defendants Sahuarita Town Council and Thomas Johnston and the distribution of the 26 settlement proceeds are fair, just, reasonable, and appropriate, and thus justify approval 27 under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This finding is based on the 28 Court’s consideration of the admissible evidence, arguments of counsel, submitted briefs, 1 || and representations by the parties during the September 19, 2023 status conference. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiffs Wright and L.A.W.’s Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Minor L.A.W.’s Claims Against the Town Defendants (Doc. 239) is granted consistent 5 || with this Order. 6 2. The Court’s September 11, 2023 Order (Doc. 229) appointing Brian Wright 7\| as L.A.W.’s guardian ad litem is vacated. 8 3. Plaintiff Wright’s Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. 224) is || denied as moot. 10 4. Defendants Sahuarita Town Council and Thomas Johnston shall disburse 11 || L.A.W.’s settlement funds to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc., as described in Part I || and Exhibit A of the Settlement and General Release Agreement (Doc. 293-3 at 2, 8-14). 13 Dated this 4th day of October, 2023. 14

16 i, Jennifer G. 71 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-