Munoz v. Watsonville Community Hospital et al

Filing 83

ORDER DENYING 82 MOTION FOR SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND PETITION TO CONFIRM GUARDIAN AD LITEM. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/8/2016. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

RAFAEL MUNOZ, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-00932-BLF

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

WATSONVILLE COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE AND PETITION TO
CONFIRM GUARDIAN AD LITEM
[Re: ECF 82]

12
13

Plaintiff Rafael Munoz filed this suit on February 27, 2015 against Defendant Watsonville

14

Community Hospital (“WCH”), alleging violation of the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor

15

Act (“EMTALA”). Compl., ECF 1. After a number of motions to dismiss and motions to strike,

16

Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint against WCH and Community Health

17

Systems, Incorporated. Second Am. Compl., ECF 70. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for

18

an order for a subsequent case management conference and for confirmation of Plaintiff Rafael

19

Munoz as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff J.M., a minor. Mot. 1, ECF 82.

20

In support of the motion for an order for a subsequent case management, Plaintiff requests

21

that a new case management order be issued with new dates to provide additional time for

22

discovery. Plaintiff claims that more time is needed because discovery has been stayed and he is

23

unprepared for the upcoming dispositive motion, currently scheduled to be heard on October 5,

24

2017. Mot. 3; Ord. Staying Discovery, ECF 69; Scheduling Order, ECF 67. The Court does not

25

conduct further case management conference on this ground and thus DENIES the motion for a

26

subsequent case management conference. However, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and

27

confer to come to an agreement on a proposed new schedule. The Court further ORDERS the

28

parties to file the joint stipulation of the proposed schedule by January 3, 2017.

1
2

The Court now turns to the request to confirm Mr. Rafael Munoz as guardian ad litem for

3

Plaintiff J.M. When a minor is a litigant, “[t]he Court has a duty to ensure that [the] minor’s

4

interest[s] are protected.” Brown v. Alexander, No. 13-CV-01451-RS, 2015 WL 7350183, at *1

5

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). “A guardian ad litem is like the minor’s

6

agent whose purpose is to protect the minor’s interests in the litigation. While a guardian ad litem

7

‘may make tactical and even fundamental decisions affecting the litigation,’ he or she must make

8

those decisions ‘always with the interest of the guardian’s charge in mind.’” Id. (quoting Williams

9

v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47 (2007)).

10

In support of the petition to appoint Mr. Munoz as guardian ad litem, no declaration has

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

been provided, other than attorney argument in the motion that Mr. Munoz has no conflict of

12

interest. Mot. 3. Plaintiff has also failed to provide a statement of consent and a statement

13

establishing a legal right to serve as guardian ad litem. The Court finds this record insufficient to

14

ensure that J.M.’s interests are protected. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petition without

15

prejudice.

16

The petition to appoint Mr. Munoz as guardian ad litem may be renewed, accompanied by

17

a declaration establishing Mr. Munoz’s legal right to serve as guardian ad litem for J.M., his

18

consent to serve as guardian ad litem, and that no actual or potential conflict of interest exists

19

between Mr. Munoz and J.M.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: December 8, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2