Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01180/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01180-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1 

19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GWEN DAIGLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF OCEANSIDE et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM 

[Doc. No. 22.] 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Hunter Willow Munsterman’s motion for her 

appointment as guardian ad litem of her minor half-sister, Plaintiff R.A.Q. Defendants both 

oppose this appointment on the basis that Munsterman and R.A.Q.’s relationship as coclaimants in this litigation creates a potentially disqualifying conflict of interest. The 

motion to appoint Munsterman as guardian ad litem is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Gwen Daigle alleges that, on October 19, 

2018, she was arrested for public intoxication by City of Oceanside police officers. She 

lost consciousness and then awoke in a jail cell at the San Diego County Sheriff 

Department’s Vista Detention Facility. About a year later, on October 14, 2019, Plaintiff 

Daigle passed away as a result of an intracranial hemorrhage. On February 2, 2020, 

Case 3:19-cv-01180-BAS-WVG Document 52 Filed 04/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff’s counsel filed, and the Court granted, an ex parte application to substitute 

Plaintiffs and for leave to file a second amended complaint. The application sought to 

substitute Deborah Lee Carman, Brandon Lee Daigle, Hunter Willow Munsterman, 

individually and as guardian ad litem for her minor half-sister R.A.Q., who is 13-yearsold., as plaintiffs. Plaintiff Munsterman then filed a separate application to be appointed as 

guardian for minor Plaintiff R.A.Q. 

Defendants oppose Munsterman’s appointment based on her status as a co-plaintiff 

in this case in addition to her familial relationship with R.A.Q. They contend this 

relationship and status creates a potential conflict of interest. The County provides the 

contours of this potential conflict: 

Munsterman serving as the guardian ad litem for R.A.Q. is rife with 

potential conflicts because a component of their claimed damages is the value 

of their respective relationships with their mother. As the Court is aware, there 

is no set value for such a relationship. Rather, their corresponding 

relationships with their mother will be compared to determine what each 

Plaintiff’s loss is worth. As a result, Munsterman and R.A.Q. may both have 

an interest in downplaying the nature and extent of the other’s relationship 

with their mother. Even more troubling, as guardian ad litem, Munsterman 

would have the ability to control the litigation on behalf of R.A.Q. even the 

right to settle R.A.Q.’s case, when it may not be in R.A.Q.’s best interest. In 

fact, one potential benefit of Munsterman agreeing to settle R.A.Q.’s case 

before trial is that doing so may increase the value of Munsterman’s case. 

(Doc. No. 29 at 5.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 17(c) establishes certain rules regarding representation of minors and 

incompetent persons in federal court actions. First, for individuals “with a representative,” 

the Rule provides that “[t]he following representatives may sue or defend on behalf of a 

minor or an incompetent person: (A) a general guardian; (B) a committee; (C) a 

conservator; or (D) a like fiduciary.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1). Second, for individuals 

“without a representative,” the Rule provides that “[a] minor or incompetent person who 

does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by guardian ad 

Case 3:19-cv-01180-BAS-WVG Document 52 Filed 04/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

litem. The 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)(2). 

Pursuant to Rule 17(c)(2), the federal court thus has the power to appoint a special 

representative for a minor or incompetent plaintiff. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land,

795 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1986). “The role of the guardian ad litem is to protect the 

incompetent person’s rights in the action, to control the litigation, to compromise or settle, 

to direct the procedural steps, and make stipulations.” Golin v. Allenby, 190 Cal. App. 4th 

616, 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). As a general matter, the decision whether to appoint a 

guardian ad litem is “normally left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” United States 

v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir. 1986). 

III. DISCUSSION

 While the potential for a theoretical conflict exists, this Court is not persuaded that 

an actual conflict exists now. The Court first notes that Defendants’ reliance on Hernandez 

v. Starlight Mgmt-17 LP, No. CV-17-3661-PA(FFMx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151115 

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017) is misplaced for several reasons. First, that order is an 

unpublished in-chambers order from the Central District of California. Second, the decision 

to not appoint the guardian ad litem was made with no analysis and was based solely on 

the fact that the guardian ad litem was related to the incompetent. Third, the reasoning in 

that order was based simply on the court’s “concern” that the two were related and that this 

relationship “may” create a conflict of interest. The Court respectfully disagrees with this 

reasoning for the reasons stated below. 

 Further, Defendants do not cite or discuss the effect of Elliott v. Versa CIC, L.P., 

328 F.R.D. 554 (S.D. Cal. 2018)—a recent published order issued by the very district judge 

in this case. In Elliott, Judge Bashant initially appointed the co-plaintiff daughter as 

guardian ad litem for her co-plaintiff mother. After two years of litigation, the defendants 

filed a motion to remove the daughter as guardian ad litem. Judge Bashant denied the 

defense’s motion and specifically addressed the weaknesses of Hernandez. Although the 

Case 3:19-cv-01180-BAS-WVG Document 52 Filed 04/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defense in Elliott had raised more specific reasons that a potential conflict existed, Judge 

Bashant nonetheless found the guardian’s removal was not warranted in part because the 

Court would ultimately have the authority to approve or reject any settlement that 

disfavored the incompetent. Additionally, because the case had not settled and the Court 

had not been tasked with approving a settlement, any potential conflict was inapposite 

given the procedural posture of the case. Thus, the potential conflict was speculative and 

premature. 

 Judge Bashant’s reasoning in Elliott applies here as well. Although the County 

contends Munsterman may have the incentive to secure more settlement funds for herself 

to R.A.Q.’s detriment, such a scenario is far too speculative at this stage. As an initial 

matter, this case may never settle and may go to trial instead. Under that scenario, this 

potential conflict never materializes. Second, given that Munsterman has taken R.A.Q. into 

her home and now cares for her food, shelter, and security needs, it seems unlikely that 

Munsterman would turn around and swindle her half-sister in this case. If the Court’s 

reliance in Ms. Munsterman ultimately is shown to be misplaced, the Court will have the 

authority to remove Munsterman as R.A.Q.’s guardian if the need arises in the future. 

Elliott, 328 F.R.D. at 556 (“[I]n its discretion, the Court may remove a guardian ad litem 

if she acts contrary to the best interests of the minor or incompetent plaintiff, has a conflict 

of interest with the minor or incompetent plaintiff, or demonstrates an inability or refusal 

to act.”) Being on notice of this now, Munsterman will be aware that this Court—which 

will have the responsibility to approve any settlement—will direct a scrutinizing eye 

towards any settlement of R.A.Q.’s claims to ensure Munsterman has faithfully carried out 

her duties to R.A.Q. But for now, the potential conflict identified here is too speculative 

and premature to justify denying the motion. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-01180-BAS-WVG Document 52 Filed 04/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, Munsterman’s motion for her appointment as R.A.Q.’s 

guardian ad litem is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 15, 2020 

V 

Hon. William V. Gallo 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01180-BAS-WVG Document 52 Filed 04/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5