Doe v. Mt. Diablo Unified School District

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 3 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Case No.: CV 14-02167-KAW JOHN DOE, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, C.D., ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM Plaintiff, v. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Plaintiff John Doe No. 116 (“John Doe”) filed this case on May 12, 2014. He asserts 13 causes of action for negligence, breach of statutory duties and violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 14 1681, arising from sexual assaults allegedly committed by John Doe’s teacher and employee of 15 Mt. Diablo Unified School District. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 6-15.) 16 C.D., John Doe’s biological grandmother, seeks appointment as guardian ad litem for John 17 Doe, who is 19 years old, and has been diagnosed with autism and an intellectual disability. (Pet. 18 for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, “Pl.’s Pet.,” Dkt. No. 3.) The petition is GRANTED for 19 the reasons set forth below. 20 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD “A minor or an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative 22 may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem— 23 or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 24 unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). 25 An individual’s capacity to sue is determined “by the law of the individual's domicile.” 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Under California law, a guardian ad litem may be appointed by the court to 27 represent the interests of an individual who is incompetent and unable to represent his or her own 28 interests in litigation. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372(a). “A court has broad discretion in ruling on a 1 1 guardian ad litem application.” Williams v. Superior Court of San Diego, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47 2 (2007) (citing In re Emily R., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1356 (2000)). When there is no conflict of 3 interest, the guardian ad litem appointment is usually made on an ex parte application and 4 involves minimal exercise of discretion by the court. In re Marriage of Caballero, 27 Cal. App. 5 4th 1139, 1149 (1994); Kulya v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C 06-06539 JSW, 2007 6 WL 760776, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007). II. 7 8 9 DISCUSSION John Doe is a 19 year old male with autism and an intellectual disability. (Pl.’s Pet. ¶ 1.) C.D., the child’s biological grandmother, raised John Doe and has, at all relevant times, acted on behalf of John Doe in the role of parent and guardian, including representing John Doe in IEP 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 meetings.” (Pl.’s Pet. ¶ 4.) C.D. may serve as his guardian ad litem so long as she does not have 12 an interest adverse to his. See Williams, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 50. 13 This action was brought on John Doe’s behalf, and so C.D. complains of the same injury 14 and seeks the same relief. See Gonzalez v. Reno, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2000), 15 aff’d, 212 F. 3d 1338, 1351-53 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[W]hen a parent brings an action on behalf of a 16 child, and it is evident that the interests of each are the same, no need exists for someone other 17 than the parent to represent the child’s interests under Rule 17(c).”). Accordingly, the court finds 18 that the appointment of the proposed guardian ad litem is in Plaintiff’s best interest. III. 19 20 21 22 23 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s petition for the appointment of C.D. as guardian ad litem is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 27, 2014 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?