Trout v. County of Madera ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH TROUT, as the proposed guardian ad Case No. 1:22-cv-00867-ADA-SAB litem of minors D.A., J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3, 12 ORDER APPOINTING KEITH TROUT AS Plaintiffs, GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR MINOR 13 PLAINTIFFS D.A., J.G.1, J.G.2, AND J.G.3 v. 14 (ECF Nos. 3, 14) COUNTY OF MADERA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 13, 2022, Keith Trout (“Petitioner”), as the proposed guardian ad litem for minor 18 Plaintiffs D.A., J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3 filed a complaint in this action solely on the minors’ 19 behalf (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or the “Minors”). (ECF No. 1.) Concurrently with the 20 complaint, Petitioner filed a motion to be appointed guardian ad litem for minors D.A., J.G.1, 21 J.G.2, and J.G.3. (ECF No. 3.) Finding the petition to be legally and substantively deficient, the 22 Court ordered supplemental briefing on the petition. (ECF No. 10.) On August 26, 2022, 23 Petitioner filed the required supplemental briefing (ECF No. 14), which is currently before the 24 Court. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 provides that a suit by a minor may be brought or 26 defended by “(A) a general guardian; (B) a committee; (C) a conservator; or (D) a like 27 fiduciary.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1). A minor who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by next friend or a guardian ad litem. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). 1 The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. U.S. v. 30.64 2 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th 3 Cir. 1986). Rather, Rule 17 requires the Court to take whatever measures it deems appropriate to 4 protect the interests of the individual during the litigation. Id. “A guardian ad litem is appointed 5 as a representative of the court to act for the [ward] . . . , with authority to engage counsel, file 6 suit, and to prosecute, control and direct the litigation. As an officer of the court, the guardian ad 7 litem has full responsibility to assist the court to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive 8 determination of the action.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1053 9 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (discussing the differences between a 10 “general guardian” and a “guardian ad litem”). A guardian ad litem need not possess any special 11 qualifications, but he must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf 12 he seeks to litigate.” Id. at 1053–54. This means that the guardian ad litem cannot face an 13 impermissible conflict of interest with the ward and courts consider the candidate’s “experience, 14 objectivity, and expertise . . . or previous relationship with the ward.” Id. at 1054 (citations 15 omitted). In short, the Court “is under a ‘legal obligation’ to consider whether the [ward] is 16 adequately protected.” Id. at 1049. 17 Further, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California state: 18 Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent 19 person, the attorney representing the minor or incompetent person shall present (1) appropriate evidence of the appointment of a 20 representative for the minor or incompetent person under state law or (2) a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the 21 Court, or, (3) a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the 22 minor or incompetent person. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 23 E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(a). 24 The Court previously indicated it required additional information and evidence before it 25 could determine whether to appoint Petitioner as guardian ad litem for Minors D.A., J.G.1, 26 J.G.2, and J.G.3., specifically regarding his relationship with the Minors, potential conflicts of 27 interest, whether Petitioner was the appropriate guardian ad litem in light of the fact that none of 1 this Court to consider with respect to Petitioner’s “experience, objectivity, and expertise . . . or 2 previous relationship” with the Minors to satisfy the “dedicated to best interests” consideration. 3 (See generally ECF No. 10.) Having considered the petition for appointment as guardian ad 4 litem for the Minors, the supplemental briefing, and supporting declarations, the Court finds 5 granting the petition is warranted. 6 Petitioner is the father of the late Calley Garay and maternal grandfather of her four 7 children, the Minor Plaintiffs. (Trout Supp. Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 14-5.) Minor D.A. is the 8 daughter of Calley Garay and Fernando Alvarado. (Alvarado Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 14-1.) 9 Alvarado and Calley separated in 2011, at which time Alvarado took custody of D.A. and Calley 10 had visitation rights. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Alvarado moved to Tennessee with D.A. in 2018; they 11 currently reside there with Alvarado’s wife and their two sons. Minors J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3 12 are the children of Calley and Julio Garay, Sr., who was ultimately convicted of Calley’s murder. 13 (ECF No. 14 at 4–5.) While the complaint indicates J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3 were placed under 14 the care and custody of Julio, Jr. by the Madera County Department of Social Services (ECF No. 15 1 at 33), the supplemental briefing and declarations indicate Petitioner filed a request to change 16 court order when the Garay family refused to facilitate visits and placement of J.G.1, J.G.2, and 17 J.G.3 ultimately reverted back to Sarah and Peter Rodriguez in October 2021.1 (S. Rodriguez 18 Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 14-3; P. Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 14-2.) Sarah Rodriguez is Calley’s 19 first cousin. (S. Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 1.) J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3 now live with the Rodriguezes and 20 their two daughters in Chowchilla, California. (S. Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6; P. Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6.) 21 Though the Minors do not live with Petitioner, he avers a close, ongoing relationship with 22 the Minors. For example, when Calley decided to leave Garay, Sr., Petitioner and his wife 23 immediately drove from their residence in North Dakota to California to be with Calley and 24 J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3 and Petitioner spent much time with his grandsons. (Trout Supp. Decl. ¶ 25 7; S. Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 13; P. Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 13.) Petitioner worked with and supported 26 1 After Garay, Sr. was convicted of Calley’s murder, his parental rights were terminated. Garay Jr.’s custody of the 27 boys has also been terminated and his visitation has been suspended by the Madera County Superior Court. (Trout. Supp. Decl. ¶ 15.) Petitioner indicates he intends to seek leave to file an amended complaint to update the current 1 Sarah Rodriguez and Sarah’s mother to help Calley secure a safe place to stay, food, laundry, 2 medical care, and emotional support during that time. (id.; Dayton Decl. ¶ 7; S. Rodriguez Decl. 3 ¶ 13; P. Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 13.) After Calley’s death, Petitioner actively participated in the 4 Madera County dependency proceedings concerning J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3 and collateral 5 matters. (Trout Supp. Decl. ¶ 8.) He engaged the services of attorney Jessica Dayton to 6 represent his position as grandfather to J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Throughout the 7 dependency proceedings, Petitioner was recognized as a significant part of their lives, was 8 included in the dependency proceedings and ultimately granted visitation orders. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–9.) 9 Petitioner is actively supporting Sarah and Pete Rodriguez’s desire to adopt J.G.1, J.G.2, and 10 J.G.3. (Id. at ¶¶ 14–16; S. Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 15–16; P. Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 15–16.) He 11 continues to maintain a close relationship with the boys, visiting as frequently as he can and 12 participating in weekly video calls. (Trout Supp. Decl. ¶ 13; S. Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 14; P. 13 Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 14.) 14 Finally, Petitioner avers he understands the duties required of a guardian ad litem, has 15 sufficient time and attention to perform those duties, and wishes to pursue the litigation on the 16 Minors’ behalf and represent their best interests. (Trout Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 18.) The legal 17 guardians of the Minors have all indicated they do not seek to become guardians ad litem of the 18 Minors, and unreservedly consent to Petitioner serving as guardian ad litem to each Minor and 19 maintaining the instant litigation on their behalf. (Alvarado Decl. ¶¶ 8–10; S. Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 20 7, 17, 19; P. Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 7, 17, 19.) LaDonna Jo Williams, the Minors’ only other 21 surviving grandparent also supports and recommends Petitioner’s application for appointment as 22 guardian ad litem. (Williams Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 14-4.) 23 Thus, the Court finds that no conflict would preclude Petitioner from serving as a 24 guardian ad litem for the Minors, that he is competent to be the Minors’ guardian ad litem, and 25 has no adverse interests to the Minors’ claims. Further, the Court is satisfied Petitioner has 26 demonstrated he meets the “dedicated to best interests” consideration. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 27 143 F. Supp. 3d at 1054; see also Coal. of Clergy, Laws., and Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1 Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The petition for appointment of guardian ad litem (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED; and 3 2. Keith Trout is APPOINTED as Guardian Ad Litem for minor Plaintiffs D.A., 4 J.G.1, J.G.2, and J.G.3. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 7 | Dated: _August 29, 2022 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28