R.L. v. County of Kern ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 R.L., a minor, by and through guardian ad litem ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01352-DAD-JLT Roberta Haro, et al., ) 12 ) ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO Plaintiffs, ) APPOINT ROBERTA HARO AS THE 13 ) GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFFS v. ) R.L., M.L., AND H.L. 14 ) COUNTY OF KERN, et al., ) (Doc. 8) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 This action involves a fatal officer-involved shooting of Plaintiffs’ father, Mickel E. Lewis Sr. 18 on October 2, 2020. (See Doc. 1 at 2.) Roberta Haro seeks appointment as the guardian ad litem for 19 minor plaintiffs R.L., M.L., and H.L. who are her biological children. (Doc. 8 at 2.) For the reasons 20 set forth below, the petition is GRANTED. 21 I. Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem 22 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor . . . who does not have a duly 23 appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). 24 In addition, a court “must appoint a guardian ad litem - or issue another appropriate order - to protect a 25 minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Id. The capacity of an individual to 26 sue is determined “by the law of the individual’s domicile.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). 27 Under California law, an individual under the age of eighteen is a minor, and a minor may 28 bring suit if a guardian conducts the proceedings. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6502, 6601. The Court may 1 appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the minor’s interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a). To evaluate 2 whether to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the Court must consider whether the minor and the 3 guardian have divergent interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(b)(1). For example, “[w]hen there is a 4 potential conflict between a perceived parental responsibility and an obligation to assist the court in 5 achieving a just and speedy determination of the action, a court has the right to select a guardian ad 6 litem who is not a parent if that guardian would best protect the child’s interests.” Williams v. Super. 7 Ct., 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 8 “[I]f the parent has an actual or potential conflict of interest with his child, the parent has no right to 9 control or influence the child’s litigation.” Id. at 50. 10 II. Discussion and Analysis 11 R.L., M.L., and H.L. are under the age of eighteen (Doc. 8 at 2) and are minors under California 12 law. See Cal. Fam. Code § 6502. As minors, their ability to bring suit is contingent upon appointment 13 by the court of a guardian ad litem. Upon review of the complaint, it does not appear there are adverse 14 interests because Roberta Haro is not a plaintiff in the action, and the only claims in the complaint are 15 asserted on behalf of the minor children. (See generally Doc. 1.) Ms. Haro also consents to act as 16 guardian ad litem for R.L., M.L., and H.L. (Doc. 8-1 at 2.) 17 Because there is neither an actual nor potential conflict of interest between the minor plaintiffs 18 and Ms. Haro, appointment of Ms. Haro as guardian ad litem for her children in this action is 19 appropriate. See Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001) (appointment of a guardian is 20 appropriate where the person requesting appointment has “the same interests as the child” and there is 21 no inherent conflict of interest); see also Anthem Life Ins. Co. v. Olguin, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37669, 22 at *7 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2007) (observing that “[a] parent is generally appointed guardian ad litem”). 23 III. Conclusion and Order 24 The decision whether to appoint a guardian ad litem is “normally left to the sound discretion of 25 the trial court.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, etc., 795 F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, it 26 does not appear Roberta Haro has any conflicting interests with the minor plaintiffs, and as such she 27 may be appointed to represent the interests of her children. Therefore, the Court is acting within its 28 discretion to grant plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of Ms. Haro as their guardian ad litem. Based 1 upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The motion for appointment of Roberta Haro as guardian ad litem for R.L., M.L., and 3 H.L. (Doc. 8) is GRANTED; and 4 2. Roberta Haro is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for plaintiffs R.L., M.L., and H.L. 5 and is authorized to prosecute the claims on their behalf. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: September 23, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28