Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.T. by and through his guardian ad litem Case No.: 26-cv-1276-AJB-DEB DELIA TAPIZ, JUAN TAPIZ, and 12 ORDER REGARDING GUARDIAN DELIA TAPIZ AD LITEM 13 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; MARCO CALDERILLA, in his individual capacity, 17 SAMANTAH DAVIS, in her individual 18 capacity, and DOES 1–10, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiffs initiated this civil rights complaint against Defendants County of San 22 Diego, Marco Calderilla, and Samantha David on February 27, 2026. (Doc. No. 1.) Upon 23 review of the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff A.T. is a minor whose claims are brought 24 by and through his mother, Delia Tapiz. (See id.) However, Plaintiffs have not filed a 25 motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem. 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) requires that “[t]he court must appoint a 27 guardian ad litem . . . to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an 28 action.” An individual’s capacity to sue is determined by the law of his domicile. Fed. R. 1 Civ. P. 17(b). Under California law, an individual under the age of eighteen is a minor. 2 Cal. Fam. Code § 6502. A minor may bring suit as long as a guardian conducts the 3 proceedings. Cal. Fam. Code § 6601. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem to 4 represent a minor’s interests in the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a). 5 The Ninth Circuit has stated, “[a]lthough the [district] court has broad discretion and 6 need not appoint a guardian ad litem if it determines the person is or can be otherwise 7 adequately protected, it is under a legal obligation to consider whether the person is 8 adequately protected.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in 9 Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir.1986). 10 The decision whether to appoint a guardian ad litem is “normally left to the sound 11 discretion of the trial court,” and the main consideration for the district court is protection 12 of the minor’s interest. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 804–05. In determining whether 13 to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the court must consider whether the minor and 14 the guardian have divergent interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(b)(1). “When there is a 15 potential conflict between a perceived parental responsibility and an obligation to assist the 16 court in achieving a just and speedy determination of the action, a court has the right to 17 select a guardian ad litem who is not a parent if that guardian would best protect the child’s 18 interests.” Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 49 (2007) (citation and 19 internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f the parent has an actual or potential conflict of 20 interest with his child, the parent has no right to control or influence the child’s litigation.” 21 Id. 22 Because the Court is under a legal obligation to consider whether Plaintiff A.T. is 23 adequately protected, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to, in writing, address whether A.T. 24 may adequately represent himself in this action. If A.T. is a minor, appointment of a 25 guardian is necessary to protect his interests. See Cal. Fam. Code § 6601 (“A minor may 26 enforce the minor’s rights by civil action or other legal proceedings in the same manner as 27 an adult, except that a guardian must conduct the action or proceedings.”). Thus, Plaintiffs 28 must move to appoint a guardian ad litem. Any motion to appoint a guardian ad litem must 1 ||address any potential conflicts of interest. See J. T. v. Antioch Unified Sch. Dist., No. 18- 2 || CV-02992-EMC, 2018 WL 4334603 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2018) (discussing potential 3 || conflicts of interest when a guardian ad litem asserts claims on her own behalf). Plaintiffs 4 || must respond to this order by no later than March 27, 2026. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: March 12, 2026 □ 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28