J.F. v. San Diego County Unified School ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.F., a minor, individually and on behalf of Case No.: 19-CV-2495-CAB-LL a proposed class, 12 ORDER DENYING AMENDED Plaintiff, 13 PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY UNIFIED 15 SCHOOL DISTRICT, [Doc. No. 5] 16 Defendant. 17 18 This matter is before the Court on an amended petition by Alexandra Feiles and Aron 19 Feiles to be appointed as guardians ad litem for minor plaintiff J.F. The amended petition 20 states that petitioners are J.F.’s parents and general guardians. As such, the appointment 21 of petitioners as guardians ad litem is not mandatory because “[Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure] 17(c)(1)(A) permits a ‘general guardian’ to sue in federal court on behalf of a 23 minor, and a parent is a guardian who may so sue.” See Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union 24 Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 25 12, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the Court is 26 comfortable that petitioners, as J.F.’s parents and general guardians, will adequately protect 27 J.F.’s interests, the case may proceed as permitted by Rule 17(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, it is 28 1 hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED. Issues concerning appointment of a 2 || guardian ad litem for any putative class members can be revisited in class certification 3 || briefing. 4 It is SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 7, 2020 € □ 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28