A.O. v. Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | A.O. a minor, No. 2:22-cv-01416-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff A.O., a minor, brings this action against defendant Fairfeld-Suisun Unified 20 | School District under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the 21 | Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs complaint. 22 | Mot., ECF No. 20. Plaintiffs petition for the appointment of a guardian ad litem also is pending 23 | before the court. Pet., ECF No. 23. The court denies both motions without prejudice for the 24 | reasons below. 25 | I. FAILURE TO MEET AND CONFER 26 Defendant did not seek to meet and confer prior to or during the briefing period. See Mot. 27 | This court’s standing order requires attorneys to meet and confer with one another before they file 28 | motions. See Standing Order at 3, ECF No. 12-1; Mollica v. County of Sacramento, No. 19-2017, 1 2022 WL 15053335, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). Attorneys who intend to file motions must 2 “discuss thoroughly the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” 3 Standing Order at 3. “Counsel should discuss the issues sufficiently so that if a motion of any 4 kind is filed . . . the briefing is directed only to those substantive issues requiring resolution by the 5 court.” Id. If a motion is necessary after meeting and conferring, the moving party must include 6 a certification by an attorney “that meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, with a brief 7 summary of meet and confer efforts.” Id. (emphasis omitted). 8 With respect to the motion pending in this case, the court is not willing to excuse 9 noncompliance with its standing order. “Meeting and conferring saves time and money for all 10 involved—if done correctly. Productive discussions spare both the moving and opposing party 11 the time they would otherwise have devoted to writing unnecessary or ineffective arguments.” 12 Mollica, 2022 WL 15053335, at *1. The court’s requirement to meet and confer facilitates 13 informal dispute resolution and thereby promotes judicial economy. Here, there is no indication 14 defendant even attempted to meet and confer. Further, meeting and conferring would help 15 narrow disputes as indicated by plaintiff’s non-opposition to “A.O.’s parents lack of standing and 16 request for their dismissal.” Opp’n at 1, ECF No. 25. Because defendant’s motion is not in 17 compliance with the standing order, and the court finds meeting and conferring would be 18 beneficial in this case, the court denies without prejudice defendant’s motion to dismiss. 19 II. GUARDIAN AD LITEM 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A), a general guardian may sue on 21 behalf of a minor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A). “[A] parent is a guardian who may so 22 sue.” Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 13-01145, 23 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (citation omitted); see AT&T Mobility, 24 LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1052 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Black's Law 25 Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)) (“A general guardian is ‘[a] guardian who has general care 26 and control of the ward's person and estate.’”). 27 Here, plaintiff moves the court for an order appointing his mother, Mary Osteraa, 28 as his guardian ad litem. While the petition is not properly noticed for a hearing as 1 required by Local Rule 230, see Min. Order, ECF No. 24, the court nonetheless finds the 2 appointment of a guardian ad litem is not necessary at this time. The petition states A.O. 3 has “no general guardian,” but also states Mrs. Osteraa is his “mother, primary caretaker, 4 and education rights holder.” Pet. ¶¶ 2–3. From the records, it is unclear how his mother, 5 who is also his primary caretaker, is not his general guardian. See e.g., J.F. v. San Diego 6 Cnty. Unified Sch. Dist., No. 19-2495, 2020 WL 30435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020) 7 (noting that if the parents had custody of their minor child and care for his needs, it is 8 unclear why they are not his general guardians who can sue on his behalf). Accordingly, 9 the petition is denied without prejudice. 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons above, the court denies defendant’s motion to dismiss without 12 prejudice. If defendant wishes to renew its motion, it must first initiate and exhaust meeting and 13 conferring regarding potential narrowing of disputes, including the issue of whether A.O.’s 14 parents have standing. Defendant shall file its answer or renewed motion within fourteen (14) 15 days of the filing date of this order. 16 The court also denies plaintiff’s petition for the appointment of a guardian ad litem 17 without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the petition as a motion with an explanation and citation 18 to legal authority showing why appointment of his mother as guardian ad litem is necessary and 19 appropriate in this case. Any such motion must comply with Local Rules 202 and 230. 20 Alternatively, A.O. may file a notice making “a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such 21 appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(a). 22 Any such motion or notice shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the filing date of this 23 order. 24 The court is concerned counsel for both plaintiff and defendant are not familiar with the 25 Local Rules and this court’s standing order. In addition to defendant’s noncompliance with the 26 standing order, the court also notes plaintiff’s noncompliance with Local Rule 230. See Min. 27 Orders, ECF Nos. 6 & 24. Within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order, both counsel 28 shall file a notice certifying that they have read and familiarized themselves with the Local 1 | Rules and this court’s standing order. The motion hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss 2 | and the status (pretrial scheduling) conference set for March 10, 2023 are vacated. The status 3 | (pretrial scheduling) conference is reset to April 27, 2023. The parties shall file a joint status 4 | report no later than April 13, 2023. 5 This order resolves ECF Nos. 5, 20 and 23. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: March 3, 2023. (] g l ti / { g_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE