J.M. v. Miller Creek School District ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PARENT AND GUARDIAN “SML” ON Case No. 22-cv-06105-DMR BEHALF OF MINOR SON “JM” 8 (“STUDENT”) (“SML EX REL JM”), ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 Plaintiff, SUBSTITUTE GUARDIAN AD LITEM WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 v. Re: Dkt. No. 32 11 MILLER CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff S.M.L. filed a complaint on behalf of her son J.M. She 15 seeks declaratory judgment in connection with California Education Code § 56366 (first claim), 16 appeals two adverse administrative hearing decisions pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities 17 Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (second and third claims), and alleges state law 18 claims for negligence (fourth claim against Defendant Miller Creek School District (“District”)) 19 and breach of contract (fifth claim against Defendant Anova Education and Behavior 20 Consultation, Inc., doing business as Anova Center for Education (“Anova”)). [Docket No. 7 21 (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)).] 22 On January 18, 2023, the court bifurcated this matter at the parties’ request, instructing that 23 “the IDEA appeal . . . will be adjudicated first.” [Docket No. 24.] Accordingly, Plaintiff moved 24 for partial summary judgment on March 7, 2023, appealing the July 21, 2022 and September 6, 25 2022 administrative decisions. [Docket No. 25.] 26 On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff moved to substitute S.M.L. as J.M.’s guardian ad litem. 27 [Docket No. 32.] The District and Anova each oppose that motion. [Docket Nos. 34, 35.] 1 be resolved before this case can move forward. Accordingly, the June 8, 2023 hearing on 2 Plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment on the IDEA claims and the case 3 management conference are VACATED and will be reset at a later date. As explained 4 below, the motion to substitute the guardian ad litem is denied without prejudice and the 5 July 13, 2023 hearing on that motion is VACATED. The court orders the filing of a new 6 motion, described below. The court will reset a hearing at a later date on that motion, if 7 appropriate. 8 The FAC was filed by S.M.L. on behalf of minor J.M. The FAC does not contain any 9 allegations clarifying whether S.M.L. brings this suit in her own capacity and asserts claims as a 10 parent, and/or whether she seeks to enforce J.M.’s rights. See Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. 11 Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 533 (2007) (“We conclude IDEA grants parents independent, 12 enforceable rights. These rights, which are not limited to certain procedural and reimbursement- 13 related matters, encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for the parents’ 14 child.”). The court does not want to make assumptions about this and S.M.L. and J.M. have been 15 far from clear on this point. 16 If S.M.L. is solely asserting J.M.’s rights in this lawsuit, she should have filed a motion to 17 be appointed as J.M.’s guardian ad litem when the case was initiated. Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 17 governs the capacity of parties to sue or be sued. The rule directs courts to look to 19 the law of the state of the individual’s domicile to determine whether a party has capacity to 20 participate as a party in the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). In California, an individual under 21 the age of eighteen is a minor. Cal. Fam. Code § 6502. Under Rule 17, “[a] minor or an 22 incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or 23 by a guardian ad litem.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). “[A] district court ‘must appoint 24 a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person 25 who is unrepresented in an action.’” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) 26 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). 27 S.M.L. must now go back to address this foundational issue by filing a motion for 1 J.M.’s interests up to this point. To the extent R.M. now wishes to substitute for S.M.L. as 2 guardian ad litem for J.M., Plaintiff may also file a separate motion for substitution. In both 3 motions, Plaintiff must establish that “the proposed guardian ad litem is truly dedicated to the best 4 interests of the minor and addresses whether there is any conflict of interest between the minor and 5 the proposed guardian ad litem.” Garcia v. City of Fresno, No. 116CV01340LJOSAB, 2017 WL 6 6383814, at *4 n.7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2017). The motion for appointment, as well as any motion 7 for substitution, must provide evidence supporting a finding that S.M.L. and R.M. are proper 8 guardians ad litem for J.M. in this case. 9 Plaintiff shall also address the District’s suggestion that a minor’s guardian ad litem in an 10 IDEA appeal must hold the minor’s educational rights. [See Docket No. 35 at 3.] Plaintiff shall 11 provide authority in support of her position. If Plaintiff agrees with the District’s contention, she 12 must file evidence establishing the status of J.M.’s educational rights since October 17, 2022. 13 To summarize: Plaintiff’s motion to substitute S.M.L. as J.M.’s guardian ad litem is denied 14 without prejudice. By June 20, 2023, Plaintiff must file a motion supported by admissible 15 evidence establishing that it was appropriate for S.M.L. to act as guardian ad litem for J.M. up to 16 this point. As part of that filing, Plaintiff shall brief the issue of whether a minor’s guardian ad 17 litem in an IDEA appeal must hold the minor’s educational rights, along with the evidence 18 described in the immediately preceding paragraph. The brief must include legal authority. By the 19 same deadline, Plaintiff may file a new motion to substitute R.M. as guardian ad litem, supported 20 by admissible evidence. The timing of Defendants’ opposition briefs shall be governed by the 21 Civil Local Rules. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: June 7, 2023 24 ______________________________________ Donna M. Ryu 25 Chief Magistrate Judge 26 27