N.M. v. Ramona Unified School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem filed by a party using a pseudonym without justification. The court directed the party to provide her full name or file a formal application to proceed anonymously within ten days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court directed the movant to provide her full name or file an application to proceed under a pseudonym by December 27, 2024.“Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Pamela M. to respond to this Order with either a declaration including her full name or an application to proceed under a pseudonym on or before December 27, 2024.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the default rule requires parties to use their real names and that the movant failed to provide a full name or a justification for anonymity. By directing the party to either comply with the naming requirement or formally request an exception, the court followed standard procedure for handling pseudonymous filings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the default rule requiring real names and the specific Ninth Circuit authority governing anonymity. The court appropriately denied the implicit request for anonymity by requiring the party to either provide the name or formally apply for the exception, rather than granting anonymity by default.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 N.M., a minor, by and through his Case No. 24-cv-2306-MMA-MSB Guardian ad Litem Pamela M., 12 ORDER RE MOTION TO APPOINT Plaintiff, 13 GUARDIAN AD LITEM v. 14 [Doc. No. 3] RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL 15 DISTRICT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff N.M., a minor, brings this civil rights action against Ramona Unified 20 School District and various individuals within the school district. Doc. No. 1. On 21 December 17, 2024, N.M.’s adoptive mother, “Pamela M.,” filed a motion for 22 appointment of Guardian ad Litem. Doc. No. 3. The default presumption in litigation is 23 that parties must use their real names. Doe v. Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d 1036, 1046 24 (9th Cir. 2010) (identifying five factors courts must weigh when determining whether to 25 allow a party to proceed anonymously) (quoting Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile 26 Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also Perez v. Ecfc Holdings, No. CV 16- 27 4000 DSF (PLAx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200174, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) 28 (“[E]very pleading must include the full names of the parties.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 || 10(a)). And here, Pamela M. has failed to provide her full name and has neither 2 || requested nor provided any explanation as to why she should be permitted to proceed in 3 || this action anonymously. 4 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Pamela M. to respond to this Order with either 5 ||a declaration including her full name or an application to proceed under a pseudonym on 6 || or before December 27, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: December 18, 2024 10 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28