Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06539/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06539-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGIY KULYA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

ET AL, 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-06539 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MARCH 9, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities

not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS defendant City and County of San Francisco’s motion

to dismiss all of Yvan’s claims in the complaint without prejudice.

Case 3:06-cv-06539-JSW Document 33 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Assuming the Court finds a conflict of interest, the Court has broad discretion in

choosing a guardian ad litem. Williams v. Superior Court of San Diego, 147 Cal. App.

4th 36, 47 (2007) (citing In re Emily R., 80 Cal. App. 4th. 1344, 1356 (2000)). Who do

the parties suggest to serve as Yvan’s guardian ad litem?

a. What authority do the Defendants rely on in support of appointing a dependency

lawyer to represent Yvan as his guardian ad litem? How is a dependency lawyer

qualified to safeguard Yvan’s interest?

b. What authority does Georgiy rely on to support allowing his input in selection of

the guardian ad litem if the Court finds that there is a conflict of interest between

Yvan and Georgiy? See Williams, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 52-53 (“[A] parent with

a conflict of interest is not entitled to select the guardian ad litem or control the

tactical or strategic legal decisions made by the guardian and/or the child’s

attorney.”)

c. Would the parties be amenable to selection of a guardian ad litem from a list of

the following attorneys: Andrea Miller, Donnie Cox, Paul Leehy, Dennis

Atchley and David Beauvais (see Reply. Br. ¶ 20) or Jennifer Callahan, the

attorney appointed to represent Yvan in the Family Court proceeding?

2. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06539-JSW Document 33 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 2