Roe v. Grossmont Union High School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition by Justin Slagle, the father of minor plaintiff Roe, to be appointed as guardian ad litem. The court denied the petition without prejudice, finding it unclear why the appointment was necessary given that a parent with custody is a general guardian who can sue on the minor's behalf under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem denied without prejudice“Accordingly, the Petition to appoint Justin Slagle as the guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Roe is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), a parent with legal and physical custody is a 'general guardian' who has the authority to sue on behalf of a minor. The cited authority, Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., supports the proposition that such an appointment is often unnecessary. Denying the petition without prejudice allows the petitioner to provide specific reasons why the general guardianship is insufficient, which is a procedurally appropriate response to a petition that fails to establish necessity. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the distinction between a 'general guardian' (who has inherent authority to sue) and a 'guardian ad litem' (who requires court appointment for specific litigation). By citing the relevant rule and a persuasive district court case that aligns with the rule's text, the court provides a clear basis for denying the petition while allowing the petitioner to cure the deficiency by explaining why the general guardianship is inadequate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROE, a minor, by and through her Case No.: 19-CV-1966-CAB-BGS Guardian ad Litem, JUSTIN SLAGLE, 12 ORDER REGARDING PETITION Plaintiff, 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM 14 GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL 15 DISTRICT et al., [Doc. No. 3.] 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Roe’s Petition for Appointment of 19 Guardian Ad Litem. [Doc. No. 3.] 20 The Petition states that Justin Slagle is the father of Minor Plaintiff Roe with legal 21 and physical custody, and requests the Court appoint Justin Slagle as guardian ad litem. 22 [Doc. No. 3 at ¶¶ 2-3.] It is unclear why it is necessary to separately appoint Mr. Slagle as 23 guardian ad litem in this lawsuit, when it appears that he is a general guardian who can sue 24 on his child’s behalf. See Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13- 25 CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (holding that parents’ 26 application for appointment as guardian ad litem was unnecessary, noting that “Rule 27 17(c)(1)(A) permits a ‘general guardian’ to sue in federal court on behalf of a minor, and 28 ‘[a] parent is a guardian who may so sue.’”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 1 Accordingly, the Petition to appoint Justin Slagle as the guardian ad litem for 2 || Plaintiff Roe is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner may re-file the petition 3 || with citation to legal authority and explanation as to why the appointment of a guardian ad 4 || litem is necessary in this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: October 11, 2019 € Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 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