Lawrence et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 51

ORDER that 45 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/18/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9

JACQUELINE LAWRENCE, et al.,

10

Plaintiff(s),

11

v.

12

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

13
Defendant(s).
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-03039-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 45)

15

Pending before the Court is a motion that the mothers of K.C., A.S., and K.C. be appointed their

16

guardians ad litem pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 45. No

17

response has been filed, and the deadline to do so has now passed. See Local Rule 7-2. Nonetheless,

18

the Court is not persuaded based on the submission made that the motion should be granted. Most

19

significantly, the proposed guardians ad litem are the mothers of the children, and are already

20

representing them in this case. See Docket No. 1. Other courts have found it unnecessary to appoint a

21

mother as her child’s guardian ad litem. See, e.g., Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Remington, 2013 WL

22

3070629, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) (citing Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir.

23

2001); Matter of Chi., Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 788 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986); and Croce v.

24

Bromley Corp., 623 F.2d 1084, 1093 (5th Cir. 1980)). That such appointment is not necessary is

25

consistent with the fact that the minors’ mothers initiated this case in late 2016, and litigated it for

26

roughly a year before seeking appointment as guardians ad litem.1

27
28

1

Of course, to the extent appointment of these mothers as guardians ad litem is necessary, that begs
the question as to why such appointment is being sought a year after the case was initiated.

1

In short, the motion does not explain why the relief sought is necessary, and is therefore

2

DENIED without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiffs truly believe appointments as guardians ad litem

3

is required, in addition to addressing the generally applicable standards any renewed motion shall also

4

explain why Plaintiffs believe such appointment to be necessary and why they litigated this case for

5

roughly a year before seeking that appointment. Any such renewed motion shall be filed by January 25,

6

2018.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: January 18, 2018

9

_____________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2