Wehlage v. EmpRes Healthcare Inc et al
Filing
60
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 52 , 53 MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF ISABEL S. SIMENTAL COLLIER AND MARILYN J. STARTS AS GUARDIANS AD LITEM. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
PHYLLIS WEHLAGE, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of others similarly
situated,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
15
16
17
18
EMPRES HEALTHCARE, INC; EHC
MANAGEMENT, LLC; EHC FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC; EVERGREEN CALIFORNIA
HEALTHCARE, LLC; EVERGREEN AT ARVIN,
LLC; EVERGREEN AT BAKERSFIELD, LLC;
EVERGREEN AT LAKEPORT, LLC; EVERGREEN
AT HEARTWOOD, LLC; EVERGREEN AT
SPRINGS ROAD, LLC; EVERGREEN AT
TRACY, LLC; EVERGREEN AT OROVILLE,
LLC; EVERGREEN AT PETALUMA, LLC; and
EVERGREEN AT GRIDLEY (SNF), LLC;
No. C 10-05839 CW
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF
ISABEL S.
SIMENTAL COLLIER
AND MARILYN J.
STARTS AS
GUARDIANS AD
LITEM
(Docket No. 52 &
53)
19
Defendant.
20
/
21
22
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17(c),
23
Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Marilyn J. Starts as
24
guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Howard Richard Starts, Docket No.
25
52, and the appointment of Isabel S. Simental-Collier, as guardian
26
ad litem of Plaintiff Maria Hernandez, Docket No. 53.
27
do not oppose the motion.
28
Court GRANTS the motions.
Defendants
Having considered the submissions, the
1
Under Rule 17(c)(2), “[a] minor or an incompetent person who
2
does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by next
3
friend or by a guardian ad litem.”
4
17(c)(2) further states, “The court must appoint a guardian ad
5
litem–or issue another appropriate order–-to protect a minor or
6
incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.”
7
Civ. P. 17(c)(2).
8
litem is not guided by state law, but rather the protection of the
9
individual’s interests.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2).
Rule
Fed. R.
An application for appointment of a guardian ad
Estate of Ricardo Escobedo v. City of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Redwood City, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12457, *21-22 (N.D. Cal.); 6A
11
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal
12
Practice and Procedure § 1571 at 511-12 (1991).
13
Here Plaintiffs Maria Hernandez and Howard Richard Starts are
14
intended class representatives in this action.
15
represent that no previous petitions for appointment of a guardian
16
ad litem for Maria Hernandez or Howard Richard Starts have been
17
filed in this matter.
18
of interest exists between Marilyn Starts and her husband, Howard
19
Richard Starts.
20
Simental-Collier and her grandmother Maria Hernandez.
21
supporting declarations make clear that both Plaintiffs Hernandez
22
and Starts lack capacity due to impairments in their alertness and
23
attention, their ability to process information and other factors
24
necessary for both to fully appreciate the rights, duties and
25
responsibilities created by their participation in this lawsuit.
26
Marilyn Starts and Isabel Simental-Collier are willing to serve as
27
guardians ad litem, and to visit their respective relative
28
Plaintiffs’ counsel
In addition, counsel state that no conflict
Nor does a conflict exist between Isabel S.
2
The
1
regularly and are able to identify and address their needs.
2
Accordingly, the Court finds that it is in the best interest of
3
Plaintiffs to grant the motions, and, therefore, appoints Isabel
4
Simental-Collier as guardian ad litem of Maria Hernandez, and
5
Marilyn Starts as guardian ad litem for Howard Richard Starts.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
Dated: 6/23/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?