J.M. v. Tulare City School District

Filing 11

ORDER GRANTING Farah McWilliams' #10 Application for Appointment as Guardian Ad Litem for J.M., a Minor signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/10/2022. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

J.M., a minor, by and through his guardian
ad litem Farrah McWilliams,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
TULARE CITY SCHOOL DISTRCT,

Case No. 1:21-cv-01766-AWI-EPG
ORDER GRANTING FARAH
MCWILLIAMS’ APPLICATION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS GUARDIAN AD
LITEM FOR J.M., A MINOR
(ECF No. 10)

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20

On December 14, 2021, J.M., a minor, filed this action against the Tulare City School
District asserting claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court is Farrah McWilliams’ application to be
appointed as guardian ad litem for J.M. (ECF No. 10.) For the following reasons, the Court will

21
grant the application.
22
23
24
25

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), “[a] minor or an incompetent person who
does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad
litem.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Local Rule 202 further states, in pertinent part:

26
27
28

(a) Appointment of Representative or Guardian. Upon commencement of an
action or upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a
minor or incompetent person, the attorney representing the minor or
incompetent person shall present (1) appropriate evidence of the appointment
1

1

of a representative for the minor or incompetent person under state law or (2) a
motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or, (3) a
showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary to
ensure adequate representation of the minor or incompetent person. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 17(c).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

...
(c) Disclosure of Attorney’s Interest. When the minor or incompetent is
represented by an attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the
terms under which the attorney was employed; whether the attorney became
involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the
causes of action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney
stands in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has received
or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount.
E.D. Cal. L.R. 202.
The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion
of the trial court.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 804 9th Cir. 1986). Fit
parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57,
66 (2000); Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 521 (7th Cir. 2003). Generally, there is no inherent
conflict of interest when a minor is represented by a parent who is a party to the lawsuit and who
has the same interests as the child. Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001); see also
Brown v. Alexander, 2015 WL 7350183 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015) (“In general, a parent
who is also a party to the lawsuit is presumed to be a suitable guardian ad litem, and so the court
often appoints the parent as guardian ad litem upon receipt of an ex parte application without
exercising much discretion.”) (citation omitted).
II.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

The application states that J.M. is a minor child and was born on July 31, 2016. Mrs.

22

McWilliams is J.M.’s mother, primary caretaker, and education rights holder. Mrs. McWilliams

23

resides in Tulare, California, and is fully competent to act as J.M.’s guardian ad litem. Mrs.

24

McWilliams does not have any interests adverse to J.M., is not connected in business with the

25

adverse party, and is fully competent and responsible to prosecute the proposed action for J.M.

26

(ECF No. 10 at 1.)

27
28

Mrs. McWilliams has retained Daniel Shaw to represent J.M. in this matter. Mrs.
McWilliams retained the Shaw Firm to appeal Office of Administrative Hearings Case No.
2

1

202103770 in part, as well as to raise additional claims under Section 504 and Title II of the

2

American’s with Disabilities Act. (ECF No. 10 at 1-2.) Mrs. McWilliams is solely responsible for

3

paying attorneys’ fees and costs. Mrs. McWilliam agreed to pay a retainer upfront. The Shaw

4

Firm will bill between $150-$500 dollars per hour, depending on the attorney or paralegal

5

working on the case. J.M. is a minor and cannot contract with a law firm, and will never be

6
7
8
9

responsible to pay any attorney’s fees or costs associated with this case. The Shaw Firm will be
compensated in this matter if J.M. is deemed the prevailing party. The Shaw Firm bills on an
hourly basis and is not taking any percentage of the compensatory damages sought in this case.
All causes of action include prevailing party attorneys’ fees. Mr. Shaw did not become involved
in this matter at the instance of the defendant and he stands in no relationship to any party, other

10
than as the attorney for Mrs. McWilliams and J.M. (Id. at 2.)
11
12
13
14

Mr. Shaw also filed a declaration in support of the application. (ECF No. 10-1.) Mr.
Shaw’s declaration explains that the vast majority of his firm’s clients cannot afford their fees. As
a result, The Shaw Firm’s contracts are set up so that clients do not pay fees unless The Shaw
Firm requests they do so. The Shaw Firm can serve children with disabilities and their parents in

15

this manner because special education law provides for prevailing party attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 1.)

16

Otherwise, very few parents would be able to access the courts and seek the protections afforded

17

under special education law and related civil rights laws. The majority of Mr. Shaw’s clients do

18

not pay any attorneys’ fees or costs upon disposition of the case. Any remaining fees after

19

disposition of the case are waived. The Shaw Firm operates in this manner because, as a parent of

20

a child with special needs, Mr. Shaw does not believe parents should be subject to paying

21

expensive fees to get their children help (Id. at 2.)

22

Mrs. McWilliams retained Mr. Shaw to appeal the order issued in OAH Case No.

23

2021030770 and to bring claims under Section 504 and Title II. Mrs. McWilliams paid a retainer

24

in the amount of $25,000.00. Under the terms of her agreement with Mr. Shaw, Mrs. McWilliams

25

is responsible for paying attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the appeal, but will only

26

required to pay additional attorneys’ fees and costs if The Shaw Firm makes that request. If they

27

do not succeed in the case, The Shaw Firm will likely never get paid in full. Mr. Shaw cannot tell

28

the Court when and what amount his office will ever get paid in this case, but he will only be paid
3

1

in full if the Court awards attorneys’ fees or pursuant to a settlement which will require the

2

approval of the Court. (ECF No. 10-1 at 2.) If there is a settlement, Mr. Shaw’s fees would be

3

agreed upon and would require the Court’s approval. (Id. at 3.)

4

III.

DISCUSSION

5

J.M. is a minor and lacks capacity to sue under California law. Therefore, appointment of

6

a guardian ad litem is necessary and appropriate. The application complies with Local Rule

7

202(c)’s requirements for disclosure of the attorney’s interests. There does not appear to be any

8

conflict of interest between Plaintiff and the proposed guardian ad litem. Additionally, as

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff’s parent, Mrs. McWilliams is presumed to act in the minor plaintiff’s best interests and
there is nothing to undermine that presumption. The Court will follow the general presumption
and allow Plaintiff’s parent to act as guardian ad litem.
IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Farrah McWilliams’

application (ECF No. 10) to be appointed as guardian ad litem for J.M. is GRANTED. Farrah
McWilliams shall serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:

January 10, 2022

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4