Stonebreaker v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 52

ORDER Denying Ex Parte Motion For Appointment Of Guardian Ad Litem (Re Doc. 29 ): The Court denies Ms. Blach-Villnow's Ex Parte Motion For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, sustains Guardian Life's objection to the appointment of Ms. Blach-Villnow, and rejects Guardian Life's proposal that David Stonebreaker serve as Guardian Ad Litem. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 6/23/2011. (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAMELA STONEBREAKER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

PAMELA STONEBREAKER,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21

PRUCO INSURANCE COMPANY,

22
23

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 11-0797-WQH(WVG)
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD
LITEM (DOC. #29)

Civil No. 11-0871-WQH(WVG)
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD
LITEM (DOC. #20)

24
25
26
27
28
1

11cv0871

1

On June 7, 2011, proposed Guardian Ad Litem Serena Blach-

2

Villnow filed an Ex Parte Motion For Appointment as Guardian Ad

3

Litem in case number 11-0797 (hereafter “Guardian Life case”). On

4

June 14, 2011, proposed Guardian Ad Litem Serena Blach-Villnow filed

5

an Ex Parte Motion For Appointment as Guardian Ad Litem in case

6

number 11-0871 (hereafter “Pruco case”). In both Motions, Ms. Blach-

7

Villnow, Plaintiff’s sister, requests that she be appointed as the

8

Guardian

9

Stonebreaker’s

Ad

Litem
and

(hereafter
the

“GAL”)

deceased’s

for

minor

Plaintiff
children,

Pamela
Kristin

10

Stonebreaker, Kelli Stonebreaker and Ryan Stonebreaker (hereafter

11

“minor children”).1/

12

Defendant

Guardian

Life

Insurance

Company

of

America

13

(hereafter “Guardian Life”), does not oppose the appointment of a

14

GAL for Plaintiff’s minor children, but objects to Ms. Blach-

15

Villnow’s appointment as GAL for them, because she appears to be

16

“too close to (Plaintiff) to independently represent the interest of

17

the minor (children) particularly when the interests of the minor

18

(children) may be adverse to (Plaintiff’s) interests.” Instead,

19

Guardian Life proposes that David Stonebreaker, the deceased’s

20

brother,

21

conservator for the grandfather of the minor children. Further,

22

Defendant Western Reserve Life Assurance Company (hereafter “Western

23

Reserve”), has applied to the San Diego Superior Court to have David

24

Stonebreaker appointed as Special Administrator for the estate of

25

the deceased. However, Western Reserve does not oppose the appoint-

26

ment of either Ms. Blach-Villnow or David Stonebreaker as GAL.

act

as

the

GAL,

because

he

currently

serves

as

27
28

1/

The Court notes that Kristin Stonebreaker is 15 years old, Kelli
Stonebreaker is 13 years old, and Ryan Stonebreaker is five years
old.

2

11cv0871

the

1
2

The Court having reviewed the papers submitted by counsel,
and having met privately with the minor children, HEREBY ORDERS:

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 states in pertinent part:

4

(b) Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as
follows:
...
(3) ... by the law of the state where the court
is located.
...
(c)(2) A minor... who does not have a duly
appointed representative may sue by a next friend or
by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a
guardian ad litem – or issue another appropriate order
– to protect a minor... who is unrepresented in an
action.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

California law applies to determine capacity to sue. Pursuant

12

to California law, a minor must be represented by a GAL in court

13

proceedings. Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. §372(a). A court has broad

14

discretion in ruling on an application for appointment of a GAL.

15

Kulya v. City and County of San Francisco, 2007 WL 760776 at *1

16

(N.D. Cal. 2007), citing Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App 4th

17

36, 47 (2007).

18

The GAL’s main focus is the best interest of the minor. The

19

GAL is an officer of the court with the right to control the minor’s

20

litigation. When a court chooses a GAL for a civil lawsuit, the most

21

important issue is the protection of the minor’s interest in the

22

litigation. Kulya, supra, at *1. Under such circumstances, a parent

23

with a conflict of interest is not entitled to select the GAL or

24

control the tactical or strategic decision made by the GAL and/or

25

the minor child’s attorney. Bhatia v. Corrigan, 2007 WL 1455908 at

26

*1 (N.D. Cal. 2007), citing Williams, supra, at 50.

27

Here, the Court met with the minor children and spoke

28

privately with them. During the meeting, the Court explained to the

3

11cv0871

1

minor children the purpose of the meeting, the appointment of a GAL

2

for them who has their best interests in mind, and that Ms. Blach-

3

Villnow and David Stonebreaker have been proposed as the GAL.

4

Kristin and Kelli Stonebreaker2/ candidly discussed with the Court

5

their lives since the death of their father, the deceased, and their

6

views regarding Ms. Blach-Villnow and David Stonebreaker.

7

Due to the upheaval in Kristin and Kelli’s family after the

8

death of their father and the many strangers that have been involved

9

in their lives since his death, they expressed their desire to have

10

someone

11

expressed their desire that Ms. Blach-Villnow be appointed as their

12

GAL.

familiar

to

them

to

be

appointed

as

their

GAL.

They

13

After having reviewed the papers submitted by counsel and the

14

authorities cited therein, and having met with the minor children

15

and discussed the appointment of a GAL for them, the Court finds

16

that neither Ms. Blach-Villnow nor David Stonebreaker would be

17

appropriate to serve as GAL for the minor children. The Court finds

18

that Ms. Blach-Villnow and David Stonebreaker have an actual or

19

potential conflict of interest in influencing any tactical or

20

strategic decisions to be made in this litigation.

21

While the Court does not desire to add to the minor chil-

22

dren’s strife under the circumstances presented to them, the Court

23

believes that it is in the best interests of the minor children that

24

a neutral GAL be appointed for them. See Bhatia, supra, at *1-2.

25

Therefore, on or before June 30, 2011, Plaintiff shall

26

provide three names of neutral GALs to Defendants and the Court.

27
28

2/

Kristin and Kelli Stonebreaker are charming and intelligent young
ladies who displayed remarkable maturity and understanding of the
litigation.

4

11cv0871

1

Collectively, and on or before the same day, counsel for Defendants

2

(in both the Gaurdian Life case and the Pruco case) shall provide

3

three

4

submissions made by Plaintiff and Defendants shall identify the

5

reason(s) why the persons named qualify to be a GAL in this case and

6

shall provide any other information about that person which the

7

Court should consider in making a determination of the appropriate

8

GAL in this action.

names

of

neutral

GALs

to

Plaintiff

and

the

Court.

The

9

Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendants shall have the opportu-

10

nity to strike one name from each other’s proposed GALs. On or

11

before July 5, 2011, Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court

12

which proposed GALs have been stricken. From the remaining names,

13

the Court shall appoint a GAL for the minor children.

14

As a result, the Court DENIES Ms. Blach-Villnow’s Ex Parte

15

Motion For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, sustains Guardian

16

Life’s objection to the appointment of Ms. Blach-Villnow, and

17

rejects Guardian Life’s proposal that David Stonebreaker serve as

18

GAL.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

DATED:

June 23, 2011

22
23
Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
5

11cv0871