Lota v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 27

NOTICE OF REFERRAL and ORDER (1) regarding further submissions in support of 19 Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem and (2) setting hearing date. Mr. Lota's attorney shall file a letter brief (not to exceed 5 pages) and additional d eclaration(s) by May 18, 2012. Defendant may, but need not, file a letter brief in response by May 25, 2012. Further, the court sets a hearing on 19 Mr. Lota's counsel's Petition on June 21, 2012 at 11:00 in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 5/1/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco MIGUEL LOTA, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 No. C 11-05777 YGR (LB) Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., 15 NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER (1) REGARDING FURTHER SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND (2) SETTING HEARING DATE Defendant. [Re: ECF Nos. 19, 24] 16 17 _____________________________________/ In this action, Miguel Lota has sued his former employer for employment discrimination. Notice 18 of Removal, ECF No. 1, Ex. A. On April 23, 2012, the district court referred Mr. Lota’s counsel’s 19 Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem to a magistrate judge for a report and 20 recommendation, and the Petition was referred to the undersigned. Petition, ECF No. 19; Referral 21 Order, ECF No. 24. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 governs the capacity of parties to sue or be sued in federal 23 court. Courts must look to the law of the state of the individual’s domicile to determine whether that 24 party has capacity to participate as a party in the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). In California, a 25 party is incompetent if it lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the 26 proceeding, or is unable to assist counsel in the preparation of the case. See In re Jessica G., 93 Cal. 27 App. 4th 1180, 1186 (2001) (applying this standard to dependency proceedings); see also Cal. Prob. 28 Code § 1801 and Cal. Pen. Code § 1367; In re Sara D., 87 Cal. App. 4th 661, 666-67. A court may C 11-05777 YGR (LB) NOTICE OF REFERRAL 1 find a party incompetent only if a preponderance of the evidence supports such a finding. See 2 Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1186. A guardian ad litem may be appointed for an incompetent 3 adult only (1) if he or she consents to the appointment or (2) upon notice and hearing. See id. at 4 1187-88. 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 Here, the Petition contains the following allegations: 1. Mr. Lota is incompetent because he suffers from mental retardation, has impaired memory and speech, and is unable to read or write; 2. Because of Mr. Lota’s incompetence, the appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary to protect his interests in this action; 3. Ms. Lota, the proposed guardian ad litem, is Mr. Lota’s wife, and she has been his wife since July 6, 1992; 4. Ms. Lota is competent and qualified to understand and protect Mr. Lota’s rights and has no interests adverse to Mr. Lota’s interests in this action; and 14 5. Ms. Lota consents to her appointment as guardian ad litem for Mr. Lota. 15 Petition, ECF No. 19 at 1-2. The Petition also includes Ms. Lota’s declaration “under penalty of 16 perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing [P]etition is true and correct.” Id. 17 at 2. 18 The district court, in its order referring the Petition to a magistrate judge for a report and 19 recommendation, suggested that additional documentation might assist the court in its determination. 20 Referral Order, ECF No. 24 at 1. Such documentation would address whether Mr. Lota has a 21 representative (such as a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary), whether there has 22 been any prior adjudication of Mr. Lota’s mental competence or capacity, and whether Ms. Lota is 23 qualified to be appointed as Mr. Lota’s guardian ad litem. Id.; see Sarracino v. Superior Court, 13 24 Cal.3d 1, 12 (1974) (finding petition for appointment of guardian ad litem sufficient where 25 accompanied by guardian’s declaration setting out facts in support of the petition’s allegations). 26 In light of the District Court’s suggestion and the legal standards set forth above, the court 27 believes that the submission of further information and a hearing on the Petition is appropriate. In 28 that regard, Mr. Lota’s attorney shall file a letter brief (not to exceed 5 pages) and additional C 11-05777 YGR (LB) NOTICE OF REFERRAL 2 1 declaration(s) addressing the above-referenced points and setting forth additional facts regarding the 2 same. The letter brief and declaration(s) shall be filed by May 18, 2012. Defendant may, but need 3 not, file a letter brief in response by May 25, 2012. Further, the court sets a hearing on Mr. Lota’s 4 counsel’s Petition on June 21, 2012 at 11:00 in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District 5 Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 1, 2012 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 11-05777 YGR (LB) NOTICE OF REFERRAL 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?