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 an amended petition by the minor plaintiff's parents to be appointed as guardians ad litem. The court denied the petition, ruling that the parents, as general guardians, could represent the minor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A) without a separate appointment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of the amended petition for appointment of guardians ad litem“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A), which allows a general guardian to sue on behalf of a minor. Since the petitioners are the parents and general guardians of the minor, they are legally authorized to represent the minor's interests without the need for a separate guardian ad litem appointment, provided there is no conflict of interest. The court found no such conflict and determined the parents would adequately protect the minor's interests. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the legal standard for representing a minor in federal court. It correctly identifies that parents acting as general guardians are authorized to sue on behalf of their minor children under Rule 17(c)(1)(A). The court's determination that the parents will adequately protect the minor's interests is a factual finding supported by the lack of any alleged conflict of interest. The reservation of the issue for class certification briefing is appropriate given the proposed class action nature of the suit.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.F., a minor, individually and on behalf of Case No.: 19-CV-2495-CAB-LL a proposed class, 12 ORDER DENYING AMENDED Plaintiff, 13 PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY UNIFIED 15 SCHOOL DISTRICT, [Doc. No. 5] 16 Defendant. 17 18 This matter is before the Court on an amended petition by Alexandra Feiles and Aron 19 Feiles to be appointed as guardians ad litem for minor plaintiff J.F. The amended petition 20 states that petitioners are J.F.’s parents and general guardians. As such, the appointment 21 of petitioners as guardians ad litem is not mandatory because “[Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure] 17(c)(1)(A) permits a ‘general guardian’ to sue in federal court on behalf of a 23 minor, and a parent is a guardian who may so sue.” See Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union 24 Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 25 12, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the Court is 26 comfortable that petitioners, as J.F.’s parents and general guardians, will adequately protect 27 J.F.’s interests, the case may proceed as permitted by Rule 17(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, it is 28 1 hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED. Issues concerning appointment of a 2 || guardian ad litem for any putative class members can be revisited in class certification 3 || briefing. 4 It is SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 7, 2020 € □ 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28