A.C. v. J.C.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the docket for a case involving minor plaintiffs and noted the absence of a filed petition for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, despite the complaint's indication that one would be filed. The court ordered the plaintiffs to either file the petition or explain why it is not required by January 7, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring plaintiffs to file a petition for guardian ad litem or a response explaining why one is not required“No later than January 7, 2022, Plaintiffs must either: (1) file a petition to appoint guardian ad litem, or (2) file a response as to why the petition is not required.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that the complaint indicated a petition would be filed, but no such petition exists on the docket. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), the court has a duty to protect unrepresented minors. Requiring the parties to clarify the status of the guardian ad litem appointment is a standard and appropriate procedural measure to ensure the minor plaintiffs are properly represented. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the text of Rule 17(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the court's duty to protect minors. The court identifies a specific procedural deficiency (missing petition) and issues a clear, time-bound order to resolve it. There are no gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural directive.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 A.C., a minor, et al., Case No.: 3:21-cv-1989-L-DEB 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12 SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 17(c) 13 SCHOOL DISTRICT, 14 Defendant. 15 On November 26, 2021, Plaintiffs initiated this action against their school district. 16 (ECF 1). The Complaint indicated an application for the appointment of guardian ad 17 litem would be filed contemporaneously with it. (Id. at 1). There is no application or 18 petition on the docket. 19 “Courts have a special duty . . . to safeguard the interests of litigants who are 20 minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); Davis v. Walker, 21 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) requires a 22 court to appoint guardian ad litem or take “whatever measures it deems proper to protect 23 [a minor] during litigation.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th 24 Cir. 1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (a court “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue 25 another appropriate order—to protect a minor . . . who is unrepresented in the action.”) 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 No later than January 7, 2022, Plaintiffs must either: (1) file a petition to appoint 2 || guardian ad litem, or (2) file a response as to why the petition is not required. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: December 23, 2021 fee Soop 6 H . James Lorenz, 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