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)

Download PDF
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?