I.M. v. Elk Grove Unified School District ( 2022 )

1 Daniel R. Shaw (SB No. 281387) daniel@shawfirm.com 2 Colleen A. Snyder (SB No. 274064) colleen@shawfirm.com 3 Shaw Firm 3196 S. Higuera St. Suite E 4 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 439-4646 5 Facsimile: (805) 301-8030 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CASE NO. 2:22-CV-01035-TLN-KJN I.M., a minor, by and through his 11 guardian ad litem, Dawn Erwin, 12 ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN Plaintiff, 13 AD LITEM 14 v. 15 ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 On May 31, 2022, Dawn Erwin, parent and proposed guardian ad litem of 20 I.M., a minor, filed an action against the Defendant Elk Grove Unified School 21 District (“the District”), alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 22 of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Also on May 31, 2022, 23 Plaintiff I.M. filed a Petition to appoint his mother, Dawn Erwin, as guardian ad 24 litem. 25 “To maintain a suit in a federal court, a child or mental incompetent must be 26 represented by a competent adult.” Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary 27 School Dist., 2:13-cv-01145, 2013 WL 2666024 at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) 1 || (citation omitted). Rule 17(c) governs the appearance of minors and incompetent 2 || persons in federal court. Rule 17(c)(1) prescribes: “The following representative 3 || may sue or defend of behalf of a minor or incompetent person: (A) a general 4 || guardian; (B) a committee; (C) a conservator; or (D) a like fiduciary.” Rule 17(c)(2) 5 || states that, “[a] minor or an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed 6 || representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must 7 || appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor 8 || or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” 9 A court has broad discretion in ruling on a guardian ad litem application. 10 || Basque v. Cty. of Placer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117290 at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 11/2017). In general, a parent is presumed to act in his or her child’s best interest. See 12 || Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 604 (U.S. 1979) (noting general presumption that 13 || parents are presumed to act in the child’s best interest). 14 Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff I.M.’s Petition to appoint Dawn Erwin 15 || as his guardian ad litem should be granted. Ms. Erwin, as I.M.’s mother, and sole 16 || custodial parent, 1s presumed to act in his best interest. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: l. Plaintiff I.M.’s “Petition for Guardian ad Litem” is GRANTED; and 2. Dawn Erwin is hereby appointed as I.M.’s guardian ad litem. 21 □□ / 22 || Dated: June 15, 2022 “ \ / of WA 23 —ZNS Ze Troy L. Nunley> □ 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28