Roe v. Grossmont Union High School District et al

Filing 4

ORDER Regarding Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem [Doc. No. #3 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 10/11/2019. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ROE, a minor, by and through her
Guardian ad Litem, JUSTIN SLAGLE,

15
16

ORDER REGARDING PETITION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF
GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 19-CV-1966-CAB-BGS

v.
GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT et al.,

[Doc. No. 3.]

Defendants.

17
18
19

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Roe’s Petition for Appointment of
Guardian Ad Litem. [Doc. No. 3.]

20

The Petition states that Justin Slagle is the father of Minor Plaintiff Roe with legal

21

and physical custody, and requests the Court appoint Justin Slagle as guardian ad litem.

22

[Doc. No. 3 at ¶¶ 2-3.] It is unclear why it is necessary to separately appoint Mr. Slagle as

23

guardian ad litem in this lawsuit, when it appears that he is a general guardian who can sue

24

on his child’s behalf. See Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-

25

CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (holding that parents’

26

application for appointment as guardian ad litem was unnecessary, noting that “Rule

27

17(c)(1)(A) permits a ‘general guardian’ to sue in federal court on behalf of a minor, and

28

‘[a] parent is a guardian who may so sue.’”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).
1
19-CV-1966-CAB-BGS

1

Accordingly, the Petition to appoint Justin Slagle as the guardian ad litem for

2

Plaintiff Roe is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner may re-file the petition

3

with citation to legal authority and explanation as to why the appointment of a guardian ad

4

litem is necessary in this case.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: October 11, 2019

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
19-CV-1966-CAB-BGS