Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01234/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01234-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Background

Plaintiffs Dutchlynn Broitzmann (“D. Broitzmann”) and Oscar Zambrano (“O. Zambrano”) 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), as the natural parents and purported successors in interest of decedent 

Zarah Zambrano, commenced this action against the County of Kern and numerous individual 

defendants with their filing of a complaint on October 9, 2024. (Doc. 1). Although Plaintiffs in their 

complaint purport to act through respective guardians ad litem, Plaintiffs filed neither appropriate 

evidence of the appointment of guardians ad litem on their behalf nor motions in this Court for the 

appointment of guardians ad litem. Accordingly, on October 18, 2024, because the claims of a 

decedent minor may only be brought by a next friend or guardian ad litem, the Court directed 

Plaintiffs to file an application for the appointment a guardian. (Doc. 10). In its order, the Court 

ZARAH ZAMBRANO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO APPOINT 

GUARDIANS AD LITEM 

(Docs. 14, 15)

Case 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/06/24 Page 1 of 5
2

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

directed Plaintiffs to file an application compliant with Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and Local Rule 202. Id. at 

2.

On November 4, 2024, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motions to appoint 

guardians ad litem (Docs. 11, 12) for failing to comply with Local Rule 202(c) and directed Plaintiffs 

to file renewed applications consistent with Local Rule 202(c). (Doc. 13). Specifically, the Court 

found the motions deficient for failing to disclose the terms under which counsel for Plaintiffs was 

employed and whether counsel became involved in the application at the insistence of any Defendant. 

Id. at 4:9–17. Separately, the motions failed to demonstrate whether counsel stands in any relationship 

to Defendants or whether counsel has received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, 

and the amount. Id. Further, the Court instructed Plaintiffs that “[a] sworn attestation by the proposed 

guardian[s] ad litem (not an unsworn representation by counsel for the minors to be represented) is the 

appropriate method of satisfying the Court the proposed guardians ad litem do not have interests 

divergent to those of the minor Plaintiffs.” Id. at 4:18–28. 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ renewed separate motions for the appointment of 

guardian ad litem – as to Plaintiff O. Zambrano, his older sister Nancy Sanchez, and as to Plaintiff D. 

Broitzmann, her father Larry Broitzmann. (Docs. 14, 15). Because the renewed motions comply with 

Local Rule 202(c) as the Court previously directed, Plaintiffs’ motions shall be GRANTED.

Applicable Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a representative of a minor may 

sue or defend on the minor’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). A 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.” Id. The capacity of an individual to sue is determined “by the law of the 

individual’s domicile.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). 

Under California law, an individual under the age of 18 is a minor, and a minor may bring suit 

if a guardian conducts the proceedings. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6502, 6601. The Court may appoint a 

guardian ad litem to represent the minor’s interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a). To evaluate whether 

to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the Court must consider whether the minor and the guardian 

have divergent interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(b)(1); see id. § 372(d)(1)–(2) (“Before a court 

Case 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/06/24 Page 2 of 5
3

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

appoints a guardian ad litem pursuant to this chapter, a proposed guardian ad litem shall disclose both 

of the following to the court and all parties to the action or proceeding: (1) Any known actual or 

potential conflicts of interest that would or might arise from the appointment[; and] (2) [a]ny familial 

or affiliate relationship the proposed guardian ad litem as with any of the parties.”).

The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. United States v. 

30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th 

Cir. 1986). A Court shall take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests of the 

individual during the litigation. See id. (noting, “[a] guardian ad litem is authorized to act on behalf of 

his ward and may make all appropriate decisions in the course of specific litigation.”). The guardian 

need not possess any special qualifications, but she must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the 

person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp.3d 1042, 

1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990)). This means that 

the guardian cannot face an impermissible conflict of interest with the ward, and courts consider the 

candidate’s “experience, objectivity and expertise” or previous relationship with the ward. Id. 

(citations omitted). 

Further, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide: 

(a) Appointment of Representative or Guardian. Upon commencement of an action or upon 

initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent 

person, the attorney representing the minor or incompetent person shall present (1) 

appropriate evidence of the appointment of a representative for the minor or incompetent 

person under state law or (2) a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the 

Court, or (3) a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary 

to ensure adequate representation of the minor or incompetent person. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 17(c);

. . . .

(c) Disclosure of Attorney’s Interest. When the minor or incompetent is represented by an 

attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the 

attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the 

application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of action are asserted, 

directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to that party; and 

whether the attorney has received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, 

and the amount. (E.D. Cal. Local Rule 202).

Case 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/06/24 Page 3 of 5
4

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

The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion of 

the trial court.” 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 804. Fit parents are presumed to act in the best 

interests of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). However, “if the parent has an 

actual or potential conflict of interest with [their] child, the parent has no right to control or influence 

the child’s litigation.” Molesky for J.M. v. Carillo, No. 1:22-cv-1567-ADA-CDB, 2022 WL 

17584396, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022) (quoting Williams v. Super. Ct. of San Diego, 147 Cal. App. 

4th 36, 50 (2007)).

Discussion

In the pending motions, the proposed guardians ad litem for the Plaintiffs (the natural parents 

of the decedent on whose behalf they seek to maintain this action, see Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1–4) represent that 

Plaintiffs are minors. (Doc. 14 ¶ 1; Doc. 15 ¶ 1). Proposed guardian ad litem Larry Broitzmann 

represents that he is the biological father of minor D. Broitzmann. (Doc. 14 ¶ 1). Proposed guardian 

ad litem Nancy Sanchez represents that she is the elder sister of minor O. Zambrano. (Doc. 15 ¶ 1).

The proposed guardian ad litem for D. Broitzmann, Larry Broitzmann, nor the proposed 

guardian ad litem for O. Zambrano, Nancy Sanchez, (collectively, the “proposed guardians ad litem”) 

attest that they have no known interests adverse to the interests of the respective Plaintiff they seek to 

represent. (Doc. 14 ¶ 3; Doc. 15 ¶ 3). The proposed guardians ad litem represent individually that 

they are fully competent persons, are qualified to understand and protect the rights of their respective 

minor’s rights and best interests in this case, and are willing and able to act as guardians ad litem for 

the respective minors in all matters in this case including but not limited to settlement of any claims of 

their respective minors. (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 3–4; Doc. 15 ¶¶ 3–4). 

Plaintiffs’ motions comply with Local Rule 202(c). The proposed guardians ad litem each 

offer a sworn declaration attesting to these representations in their accompanying motions. (Doc. 14-

3; Doc. 15-3). The proposed guardians ad litem decare they have no familial or affiliate relationship 

with any of the parties in this action, other than their respective relationships with the Plaintiff

minors – Larry Broitzmann as the biological father of D. Broitzmann, and Nancy Sanchez as the elder 

sister of O. Zambrano. Id. The proposed guardians ad litem declare they have engaged The Law 

Offices of Shawn A. McMillian and The Law Offices of Tiffany Chung to represent the Plaintiff 

Case 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/06/24 Page 4 of 5
5

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

minors on a contingency fee basis, and understand the attorneys are to be compensated for their efforts 

solely from the proceeds of any settlement or judgment that may be obtained through their efforts. Id. 

Counsel for Plaintiffs also attests his representation is undertaken on a contingency fee basis, and that 

at this point in time, neither of Shawn A. McMillian nor Tiffany Chung’s firms have been 

compensated in any way for the time and effort expended to-date. (Doc. 14-4; Doc. 15-4). Counsel 

for Plaintiffs further declare that neither of the firms have been engaged by any Defendant or 

Defendant-affiliated person or agency or by any party against whom causes of action are asserted 

directly or indirectly, nor does either firm hold any interest adverse to the Plaintiff minors. Id.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint Larry Broitzmann as guardian ad litem for D. Broitzmann (Doc. 

14) is GRANTED; and

2. Larry Broitzmann is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff D. Broitzmann and is 

authorized to prosecute the action on her behalf; and

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint Nancy Sanchez as guardian ad litem for O. Zambrano (Doc. 15) is 

GRANTED; and

4. Nancy Sanchez is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff O. Zambrano and is 

authorized to prosecute the action on his behalf.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01234-KES-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/06/24 Page 5 of 5