Duprie v. ECS Partnership
ORDER granting 42 Motion to Appoint Michael P. Kavanaugh as Plaintiffs GAL --Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DENISE M. DUPRIE,
Case No. 2:16-cv-13544
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER APPOINTING
A GUARDIAN AD LITEM (DE 42)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to
appoint guardian ad litem (“GAL”). (DE 42.) For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 provides that “[t]he
court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to
protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 17(c). Here, Plaintiff has been appointed a partial guardian, Jean C. Manz,
through the Macomb County Probate Court, and asks to have a separate guardian
appointed to represent her interests in this action. She has identified attorney
Michael P. Kavanaugh as an individual who has agreed to serve as her GAL. Mr.
Kavanaugh has been appointed by Macomb County Probate Judge Kathryn A.
George as attorney for Plaintiff in probate court. The Court is informed that
Defendant does not oppose the appointment. Given the parties’ concurrence and
Plaintiff’s identification of a suitable GAL candidate, Plaintiff’s motion is
GRANTED. Michael P. Kavanaugh is hereby appointed as Plaintiff’s GAL to for
the purposes of this action. In light of this appointment, the Court will extend the
parties’ deadline for engaging in mediation to July 30, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2017
s/Anthony P. Patti
ANTHONY P. PATTI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on June 30, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?