TG v. Kern County ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 T.G., et al., ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-0257 - JLT ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO APPOINT ) REBECCA P. AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR 13 v. ) MINOR PLAINTIFF P.P. ) 14 KERN COUNTY, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiffs assert they suffered violations of their civil rights and discrimination due to their 18 disabilities while held at Kern County’s juvenile detention facilities. Because Plaintiff P.P. remains a 19 minor, he is unable to prosecute the claims presented. Accordingly, Rebecca P. seeks appointment as 20 the guardian ad litem for P.P., who is her grandson. (Doc. 45) For the reasons set forth below, the 21 request is GRANTED. 22 I. Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem 23 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor . . . who does not have a duly 24 appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). 25 In addition, a court “must appoint a guardian ad litem - or issue another appropriate order - to protect a 26 minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Id. The capacity of an individual to 27 sue is determined “by the law of the individual’s domicile.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). P.P. resides in 28 California (See Doc. 45 at 3), and the law of the state governs. 1 Under California law, an individual under the age of eighteen is a minor, and a minor may 2 bring suit as long as a guardian conducts the proceedings. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6502, 6601. A guardian 3 ad litem may be appointed to represent the minor’s interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a). To evaluate 4 whether to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the Court must consider whether the minor and the 5 guardian have divergent interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(b)(1). For example, “[w]hen there is a 6 potential conflict between a perceived parental responsibility and an obligation to assist the court in 7 achieving a just and speedy determination of the action, a court has the right to select a guardian ad 8 litem who is not a parent if that guardian would best protect the child’s interests.” Williams v. Super. 9 Ct., 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 10 If the person seeking appointment as a guardian ad litem “has an actual or potential conflict of 11 interest,” that individual “has no right to control or influence the child's litigation.” Id. at 50. 12 II. Discussion and Analysis 13 Plaintiff P.P. is the paternal grandson of Rebecca P. and is a seventeen-year-old minor under 14 California law. See Cal. Fam. Code § 6502. As a minor, his ability to bring suit is contingent upon 15 appointment by the court of a guardian ad litem. Upon review of the Complaint, it does not appear 16 there are adverse interests, because Rebecca P. does not state any claims in the action, and the only 17 named plaintiffs are those of T.G., P.P, and J.A. (See Doc. 1) Further, Plaintiffs report that Rebecca P. 18 was appointed as the guardian of P.P. by the Superior Court of California for the County of Kern, 19 Probate Division. (Doc. 45 at 2) She reports that she is “willing and able to pursue this action on [her] 20 grandson’s behalf to the best of [her] ability.” (Doc. 45-1 at 3, ¶ 9) 21 Because there is neither an actual nor potential conflict of interest between P.P. and Rebecca P., 22 appointment of Rebecca P. as guardian ad litem for her grandson in this action is appropriate. See Burke 23 v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001) (appointment of a guardian is appropriate where the 24 person seeking appointment has “the same interests as the child” and there is no inherent conflict of 25 interest). 26 III. Conclusion and Order 27 The decision whether to appoint a guardian ad litem is “normally left to the sound discretion of 28 the trial court.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, etc., 795 F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, it 1 does not appear Rebecca P. has conflicting interests with her grandson, and as such she may be 2 appointed to represent the interests of P.P. Therefore, the Court is acting within its discretion to grant 3 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of Rebecca P. as the guardian ad litem. 4 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The motion for appointment of Rebecca P. as guardian ad litem for P.P. (Doc. 45) is 6 GRANTED; and 7 2. Rebecca P. is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for plaintiff P.P., and is authorized 8 to prosecute this action on his behalf. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 11, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28