Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF BEN CUNNINGHAM, et Case No.: 3:26-cv-1185-CAB-BLM al., 12 ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS Plaintiffs, 13 TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD v. LITEM 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 [Doc. Nos. 4, 5] Defendants. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on an application by Daisy Figueroa (“Figueroa”) to 19 be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff B.N.C., [Doc. No. 4], and an application 20 by Juan Cunningham (“Cunningham”) to be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff 21 J.M.C, [Doc. No. 5]. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Figueroa’s application 22 and GRANTS Cunningham’s application. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 This case arises from the death of Ben Cunningham while he was held at San Diego 25 County Central Jail. The Plaintiffs consist of the Estate of Ben Cunningham by and 26 through his successors-in-interest B.N.C. and J.M.C.; J.M.C., individually; B.N.C., 27 individually; and Pamela Cunningham Solano, individually. B.N.C. is the decedent’s 28 minor daughter, J.M.C is his minor son, and Solano is his mother. Plaintiffs assert causes 1 of action for constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various 2 Defendants, including the County of San Diego, Kelly Martinez (San Diego County 3 Sheriff), and Jon Montgomery (Chief Medical Officer for the Sheriff’s Department). 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) states that a minor “who does not have a 6 duly appointed representative may sue . . . by a guardian ad litem” and that the “court must 7 appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor . . . 8 who is unrepresented in an action.” “[T]he appointment of a guardian ad litem is more 9 than a mere formalism.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in 10 Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986). The guardian must “be 11 truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate” and 12 not face an impermissible conflict of interest. AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 13 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1045 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 14 149, 163–64 (1990)). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 A. Figueroa & B.N.C. 17 Figueroa states that she is the natural mother of Plaintiff B.N.C., has no interests 18 potentially adverse to her daughter, is fully competent and qualified to understand and 19 protect her rights, and resides within the judicial district. [Doc. No. 4-1 at 3.] 20 If Figueroa is B.N.C.’s mother, and presumably has custody of her, it is unclear why 21 it would be necessary to appoint Figueroa as guardian ad litem because she therefore would 22 be B.N.C.’s “general guardian” and could sue on her behalf under Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 17(c)(1)(A). J.K.J. v. City of San Diego, Case No. 3:19-CV-2123-CAB-RBB, 24 2019 WL 6329219, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) (citing Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union 25 Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 26 12, 2013)). Conversely, if Figueroa is B.N.C.’s mother but does not have custody of her, 27 and is not her general guardian, the Court would need further information about Figueroa 28 and B.N.C.’s relationship. See J.F v. San Diego Cnty. Unified Sch. Dist., No. 19-CV-2495- 1 ||} CAB-LL, 2020 WL 30435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020). Accordingly, Figueroa’s 2 || application is DENIED without prejudice. If she cannot proceed under Federal Rule of 3 || Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A) as B.N.C.’s general guardian, she may re-file the application 4 || with citation to legal authority and explanation as to why she should be appointed as a 5 || guardian ad litem. 6 B. Cunningham & J.M.C. 7 Cunningham states that he is J.M.C.’s uncle, has no interests potentially adverse to 8 nephew, is fully competent and qualified to understand and protect his rights, and 9 ||resides within the judicial district. [Doc. No. 5-1 at 3.] There does not appear to be any 10 || conflict of interest between Cunningham and J.M.C. The Court finds that the standards for 11 ||the appointment of Juan Cunningham have been met and that he is qualified to serve as 12 || guardian ad litem. Cunningham’s application is GRANTED. 13 The Court also notes that it can protect J.M.C if an issue later arises given Local 14 || Rule 17.1(a), which states that: “No action by or on behalf of a minor . . . will be settled, 15 |}compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated without court order or 16 ||judgment.” 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 Daisy Figueroa’s application to be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff 19 || B.N.C. is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. No. 4.] Juan Cunningham’s application to 20 || be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff J.M.C. is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 5.] 21 It is SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 24, 2026 € Ee 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28