Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04350/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04350-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. W.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04350-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM AS TO DEFENDANT D.W.

Re: Dkt. No. 10

Before the Court is the petition for appointment of guardian ad litem filed by DefendantCounterclaimant D.W. and Counterclaimants Gregory Wald and Ingrid Sigarreta. Dkt. No. 10 

(“Pet.”). Counterclaimant Wald, D.W.’s parent, seeks appointment as guardian ad litem because 

D.W. is an unrepresented minor. Plaintiff Tamalpais Union High School District (“Plaintiff”) has 

not opposed the petition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the petition.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff appeals the decision of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) from the California 

Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). Dkt. No. 1. Counterclaimants Wald and Sigarreta, 

Defendant D.W’s parents, initiated the administrative proceeding in an attempt to receive funding 

from Plaintiff for D.W.’s placement in a private, special education facility. Id. ¶¶ 24-27. The ALJ 

denied funding for the 2014-15 school year, but awarded funding for the 2015-16 school year. Id.

¶¶ 28-30. Plaintiff seeks reversal of the 2015-16 award. Id., Prayer. After Plaintiff filed this suit, 

Defendants answered and counterclaimed for reimbursement of the 2014-15 school year costs as 

well as transportation costs incurred during the 2015-16 school year. Dkt. No. 9 ¶¶ 20-22.

Counterclaimants now petition for the Court to appoint Wald, D.W.’s parent, as a guardian 

ad litem for Defendant D.W. because he is an unrepresented minor. Pet. at 2-3.

Case 4:16-cv-04350-HSG Document 11 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides that a court must appoint a guardian ad 

litem or issue another appropriate order to protect a minor who “does not have a duly appointed 

representative” in an action. A minor is unrepresented within the meaning of Rule 17(c) if he or 

she does not have a “duly appointed” general guardian, committee, conservator, or like fiduciary. 

Id. Even where a minor is unrepresented, “the court has broad discretion and need not appoint a 

guardian ad litem if it determines the person is or can be adequately protected,” but “it is under a 

legal obligation to consider whether the person is adequately protected.” U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of 

Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986); 

accord Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014).

Generally, in this district, “a parent who is also a party to the lawsuit is presumed to be a 

suitable representative, and so the court often appoints the parent as guardian ad litem upon receipt 

of an ex parte application without exercising much discretion.” Brown v. Alexander, No. 13-CV01451, 2015 WL 7350183, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015) (citing Bhatia v. Corrigan, No. C 07-

2054 CW, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2007)). “When a parent has an actual or 

potential conflict of interest with his child, however, the parent has no right to control or influence 

the child’s litigation.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court now considers whether the appointment of a guardian ad litem is appropriate in 

this action. As an initial matter, based on the record before it, the Court finds that D.W. is an 

unrepresented minor. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4 (alleging that D.W. is a minor); Dkt. No. 9 at 2 (same). 

There is also no evidence that D.W. has been appointed a general guardian or other representative. 

Taken together, those determinations require the Court to consider under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 17(c) whether D.W. is adequately protected in this litigation without a guardian ad litem 

or some other form of protection. See 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 805. Although D.W’s 

parents have appeared as counterclaimants, the Court finds in its discretion that D.W. would not 

be adequately protected as a defendant unless he is expressly represented by a guardian ad litem.

See Dean v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, No. C-05-01876, 2006 WL 824336, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Case 4:16-cv-04350-HSG Document 11 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mar. 28, 2006) (appointing parent as guardian ad litem for minor named as a party). Furthermore, 

the nature of the complaint and counter-complaint evince no actual or potential conflicts of interest 

between D.W. and Wade. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Counterclaimants’ petition.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Counterclaimants’ petition for 

appointment of Counterclaimant Greg Wald as guardian ad litem for Defendant D.W.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

8/31/2016

Case 4:16-cv-04350-HSG Document 11 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 3