J.F. v. San Diego County Unified School
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- J.F. v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2020-12-15) — reversed in part — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition by the minor plaintiff's parents to be appointed as guardian ad litem. The court denied the petition without prejudice, finding it insufficient because it failed to explain why the parents, who appear to be general guardians, could not sue on the minor's behalf under Rule 17(c)(1)(A).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for appointment of guardian ad litem denied without prejudice“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petition failed to distinguish between a general guardian and a guardian ad litem. 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 separate court appointment as a guardian ad litem. The petition's assertion that the parents are not general guardians while also stating the minor resides with them created a factual ambiguity that the court properly required to be resolved before granting the appointment. Denying without prejudice allows the petitioners to clarify the custody status or provide legal authority for why a GAL is necessary despite the parents' status. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the distinction between general guardians and guardians ad litem under Rule 17(c). The court identified a logical inconsistency in the petition (parents residing with the child but not being general guardians) and required clarification. The denial without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow the petitioners to cure the deficiency. The court also appropriately noted the additional complexities of appointing a GAL in a putative class action context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 J.F., a minor, individually and on behalf of Case No.: 19-CV-2495-CAB-LL a proposed class, 9 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR Plaintiff, 10 APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD v. LITEM 11 SAN DIEGO COUNTY UNIFIED 12 SCHOOL DISTRICT, [Doc. No. 3] 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on a petition by Alexandra Feiles and Aron Feiles to 16 be appointed as guardian ad litem for minor plaintiff J.F. As one district court explained: 17 [A] guardian ad litem is not a general guardian. See, e.g., Bacon v. Mandell, 18 No. 10–5506, 2012 WL 4105088, at *14 n. 21 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2012). A general guardian is “[a] guardian who has general care and control of the 19 ward’s person and estate.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). A 20 guardian ad litem, on the other hand, is “[a] guardian, [usually] a lawyer, appointed by the court to appear in a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent or 21 minor party.” Id. “Ad litem” means “[f]or the purposes of the suit; pending 22 the suit.” Id.; cf., e.g., Brown v. Alexander, No. 13–01451, 2015 WL 1744331, at *7 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) (“[T]he rules permitting a court to appoint a 23 guardian ad litem exist for precisely the situation in which the child’s interests 24 are best served if he or she is represented by someone other than a custodial parent or other general guardian.”). 25 AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1051-52 (E.D. Cal. 2015). The 26 appointment of a guardian ad litem, therefore, “is more than a mere formalism.” Id. 27 (quoting United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cty., 28 1 || State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986)). The cursory petition currently before 2 court, meanwhile, treats it as such and is therefore denied. 3 The sole grounds stated in the petition for Petitioners’ appointment are that they are 4 ||J.F.’s parents and are responsible adults, and that J.F. resides with them. Yet, the petition 5 states that J.F. does not have a general guardian. If J.F. resides with Petitioners, who 6 || are his parents, and they are not his general guardians, further information is needed about 7 || J.F.’s living arrangements. If, on the other hand, Petitioners have custody of J.F. and care 8 J.F.’s needs, it is unclear how they are not J.F.’s general guardians who could sue on 9 || J.F.’s behalf under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A). See Doe ex rel. Sisco v. 10 || Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 11 ||(E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (holding that parents’ application for appointment as guardian 12 litem was unnecessary, noting that “Rule 17(c)(1)(A) permits a ‘general guardian’ to 13 ||sue in federal court on behalf of a minor, and a parent is a guardian who may so □□□□□□□□ 14 || G@nternal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d at 1051- 15 16 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED WITHOUT 17 || PREJUDICE. J.P. may re-file the petition with citation to legal authority and explanation 18 ||as to why appointment of his parents with whom he resides as guardians ad litem is 19 ||necessary and appropriate in this case, including relevant authority concerning 20 || appointment of guardians ad litem in a putative class action.’ 21 It is SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: January 2, 2020 € 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 ' That this case is brought as a putative class action raises additional issues concerning Petitioners’ ability to serve as guardians ad litem for J.F. or for the class.