Arsenii Kuznetsov & Cordelius Williams-Gonzalez, by and through their guardians ad litem v. County of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered motions by the parents of two minor plaintiffs to be appointed as guardians ad litem. The court denied both motions without prejudice, reasoning that parents with custody are general guardians who can sue on behalf of their children under Rule 17(c)(1)(A) without a specific court appointment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion of Cordelia Williams to be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff C.W.G. denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, both motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A), a general guardian (such as a parent with custody) may sue on behalf of a minor without the need for a specific appointment as a guardian ad litem. The denial without prejudice is appropriate because the court noted it would need further information if custody were not established, allowing the movant to refile with proper evidence. |
Motion of Oleg Kuznetsov to be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff A.K. denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, both motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A), a general guardian (such as a parent with custody) may sue on behalf of a minor without the need for a specific appointment as a guardian ad litem. The denial without prejudice is appropriate because the court noted it would need further information if custody were not established, allowing the movant to refile with proper evidence. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A) to distinguish between general guardians (parents with custody) and guardians ad litem. The court's reliance on district court precedent is appropriate for this procedural matter. The denial without prejudice is a sound procedural mechanism to allow the movants to provide evidence of custody if the presumption is incorrect.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARSENII KUZNETSOV & CORDELIUS Case No.: 3:26-cv-4917-CAB-GC WILLIAMS-GONZALEZ, BY AND 12 THROUGH THEIR GUARDIANS AD ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 13 LITEM, APPOINT GUARDIANS AD LITEM 14 Plaintiffs, [Doc. Nos. 2, 3] 15 v. 16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 This matter is before the Court on a motion by Cordelia Williams (“Williams”) to 20 be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff C.W.G., [Doc. No. 3], and a motion by 21 Oleg Kuznetsov (“Kuznetsov”) to be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff A.K. 22 [Doc. No. 2.] For the reasons below, the Court DENIES both motions. 23 Williams states that she is the mother of minor Plaintiff C.W.G. and Kuznetsov states 24 that he is the father of minor Plaintiff A.K. [Doc. Nos. 2–3.] Presuming from their motions 25 that Williams and Kuznetsov have custody of their respective child and care for their needs, 26 there is no need to appoint them as guardians ad litem because they would be their 27 respective child’s “general guardian” and could sue on their behalf under Federal Rule of 28 1 || Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A).! J.K.J. v. City of San Diego, Case No. 3:19-CV-2123-CAB- 2 || RBB, 2019 WL 6329219, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) (citing Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed 3 || Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. 4 June 12, 2013)). If, however, either Williams or Kuznetsov does not have custody of 5 respective child, the Court would need further information about their relationship 6 before appointing either as a guardian ad litem. See J.-F v. San Diego Cnty. Unified Sch. 7 || Dist., No. 19-CV-2495-CAB-LL, 2020 WL 30435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020). 8 || Accordingly, both motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 9 If desired, Williams and/or Kuznetsov may re-file an application with citation to 10 authority and explanation as to why either requires Court appointment. Should no 11 ||such renewed application be made, Plaintiffs should file a First Amended Complaint 12 ||naming the correct plaintiffs. 13 It is SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: September 9, 2026 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ! The Court also notes that it can protect a minor plaintiff if an issue later arises given Local Rule 17.1(a): 27 || “No action by or on behalf ofa minor . . . will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed 3g || or terminated without court order or judgment.”