J. et al v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 61

ORDER SEALING PETITION; DIRECTING SERVICE OF ORDER; SETTING HEARING; COMPELLING APPEARANCE AND AUTHORIZING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PETITION. Petition to Withdraw Hearing set for Wednesday, 2/12/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/24/2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

RONALD J.; NORA J. AND NOAH J.; minors
by and through their Guardian ad Litem,
CURTIS R. NAMBA,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 11-CV-4123 YGR
ORDER:
(1) SEALING PETITION TO WITHDRAW FROM
COURT BLOCKED ACCOUNTS;
(2) DIRECTING SERVICE OF ORDER;
(3) SETTING HEARING;
(4) COMPELLING APPEARANCE BY
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL, GUARDIAN AD
LITEM, AND FOSTER PARENTS; AND
(5) AUTHORIZING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO
PETITION

16

Now before the Court is a Petition to Withdraw from Court Blocked Accounts ("Petition"),

17

manually filed on January 21, 2014 and electronically filed under seal at Docket Number 60 in the

18

above-styled civil action. As set forth below, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to seal the

19

Petition, but to provide limited access as described herein. Further, the Court ORDERS a hearing

20

on the Petition at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 12, 2014. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs'

21

counsel, Plaintiffs' guardian ad litem Curtis R. Namba, and Plaintiffs' foster parents Lois J. and Ta-

22

Tanisha M. ("Parents") to appear for the hearing in person.

23
24
25

RELEVANT BACKGROUND
This difficult case stems from allegations that a foster child, L.J., sexually abused her three

26

foster siblings, the three minor Plaintiffs Ronald J., Nora J., and Noah J. Ronald J. was thirteen

27

years old at the time of the alleged abuse, while twins Nora J. and Noah J. were infants. Ronald J.

28

is now a senior in high school and the twins are five years old. Plaintiffs claimed that the County of

1

Alameda and other Defendants were negligent in failing to divulge L.J.'s history of sexually

2

abusing other children before placing her in foster care with Plaintiffs' Parents. Plaintiffs also

3

asserted a federal claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which prompted the County to remove the

4

case from California state court to this Federal Court.

5

On November 1, 2013, this Court issued two Orders. One approved a minors' compromise

6

settling this matter. (Dkt. No. 56 ("Minors' Compromise Order").) The Minors' Compromise Order

7

established, among other things, a $5,000 blocked savings account for each of the three minor

8

Plaintiffs, with the funds being earmarked for "current counseling and academic needs." (Id. at 2.)

9

The Plaintiffs reached the minors' compromise by and through their guardian ad litem and were

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

represented by counsel. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 54-1 ¶ 1.)
The Court's second Order of November 1, 2013, sealed portions of the documents filed in

12

support of the minors' compromise. (Dkt. No. 55 ("Sealing Order").) The Sealing Order preserves

13

the privacy of the minor Plaintiffs by redacting their surnames, dates of birth, and mailing address.

14

(Id. at 2; Dkt. No. 53 at 3.)

15

On December 23, 2013, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal of this action. (Dkt. No. 59.)

16

On January 21, 2014, Plaintiffs' Parents filed the instant Petition, in which they seek to

17

withdraw $4,500 from each of the three Plaintiffs' blocked savings accounts, leaving $500 in each.

18

DISCUSSION

19
20

The Petition raises at least three issues. First, the Court is concerned that it is the Parents,

21

rather than the Plaintiffs' guardian ad litem, who bring the Petition. The Parents identify

22

themselves as appearing pro se, and they do not describe the involvement, if any, of the guardian ad

23

litem or Plaintiffs' attorneys in bringing the Petition. "The purpose of a guardian ad litem is to

24

protect the minor's interests in the litigation." Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47

25

(2007). The role of guardian ad litem exists, in part, to ameliorate potential conflicts of interest

26

between minor litigants and their parents. See id. at 49. Here, it is not apparent from the record

27

now before the Court that the guardian ad litem has had an opportunity to discharge his duties with

28

respect to the Petition.

2

1

Second, the Court is troubled by the casual manner in which the Parents' Petition divulges

2

all of the information that the Court previously placed under seal, specifically, the Plaintiffs'

3

surnames, birthdates, and mailing address, along with other information that was redacted from

4

previous filings, such as the Parents' own names. The Petition is facially inadequate in

5

safeguarding the privacy rights of the three minor Plaintiffs. The Court, however, "has the

6

responsibility to protect the rights of a minor who is a litigant in court . . . ." Williams, 147 Cal.

7

App. 4th at 49 (citation omitted).

8
9

Finally, some of the items for which the Petition seeks withdrawal of funds lack an obvious
connection to the minor Plaintiffs' "current counseling and academic needs." The Court is not
persuaded that all of the expenditures that the Parents request serve the best interests of the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

children, or are consistent with the Minors' Compromise Order. "A minor is always the ward of

12

every court wherein his rights or property are brought into jeopardy, and is entitled to the most

13

jealous care that no injustice be done him." Williams, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 49-50 (internal

14

quotation marks omitted). "[T]he court has the inherent authority to make decisions in the best

15

interests of the child, even if the parent objects." Id. at 49.

16
17

ORDER

18

In view of the issues set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

19

(1) The Clerk of the Court shall SEAL the Petition to Withdraw from Blocked Accounts.

20

However, any party to this action, or their counsel, may access the Petition and/or related

21

documents upon a request made in person or in writing.

22

(2) The Clerk of the Court shall SERVE a copy of this order on all named parties in this

23

action by mailing it to their counsel, if any, or otherwise to the party directly. Plaintiffs shall be

24

notified through both their guardian ad litem and their counsel.

25

(3) The Court SETS a hearing on the Parents' Petition to Withdraw from Blocked Accounts.

26

The hearing shall be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, in Courtroom 5 of the

27

United States Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California. Due to the sensitivity

28

of the minor Plaintiffs' identifying information, the hearing shall be conducted under seal.

3

1

(4) The Court ORDERS the following to appear in person at the February 12 hearing:

2

counsel for Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs' guardian ad litem; and the Plaintiffs' Parents. Defendants are

3

permitted but not required to attend.

4

(5) The Court AUTHORIZES Plaintiffs and/or Defendants to file a written Response to the

5

Parents' Petition. Any Response shall be: filed in accordance with this Court's Civil Local Rules;

6

no more than five pages in length; filed with the Court at least five business days before the

7

February 12 hearing; and shall be filed under seal if it divulges any information previously sealed

8

by this Court in this case. (See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5 (procedure for sealing documents).)

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Date: January 24, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4