Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA DOE, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO APPOINT 

PLAINTIFF MARIA DOE AS GUARDIAN 

AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFF I.D.

(Doc. No. 102)

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Maria Doe, Clara Doe, and I.D.’s motion for 

appointment of a guardian ad litem and petition for approval of the compromise of a minor. (Doc. 

No. 102.)1 Having reviewed the motion, the court finds it suitable for decision on the papers. 

Accordingly, the court vacates the hearing on the pending motion scheduled for January 17, 2025. 

For the reasons explained below the court will grant Plaintiffs’ request for the appointment of 

1 Local Rule 202(a) provides “[u]pon 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 move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The 

court finds a three-year delay in requesting the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a minor 

plaintiff unacceptable. Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledges he “neglected to present the application 

until now.” (Doc. No. 102 at 8.) Plaintiffs assert Plaintiff I.D. wishes to continue the litigation and 

“[t]he apparent alternative—dismissal of I.D.’s claims—would not serve the interests of justice.”

(Id. at 9.) The court finds good cause exists to excuse Plaintiffs’ untimely request for the 

appointment of a guardian ad litem. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’ counsel is reminded of his obligation 

to adhere to the Local Rules.

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 107 Filed 01/03/25 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff Maria Doe as a guardian ad litem for Plaintiff I.D. The court will address Plaintiffs’ 

petition for approval of Plaintiff I.D.’s compromise in a separate order that also resolves 

Defendants’ pending motion for a determination of good faith settlement (Doc. No. 106).

Under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor or an incompetent 

person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a 

guardian ad 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). A representative of a minor or incompetent person may sue or defend on behalf of the 

minor or incompetent person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

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 Cnty., 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. Id. The guardian need not possess special qualifications, 

but he 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)).

In this district, Local Rule 202(a) further provides, in pertinent part:

Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in 

defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor . . . the attorney 

representing the minor or incompetent person shall present . . . a 

motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or

. . . a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is 

necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or 

incompetent person.

L.R. 202(a) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). Local Rule 202 also requires disclosure of the 

attorney’s interest, specifically requiring the following:

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.

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 107 Filed 01/03/25 Page 2 of 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

3

L.R. 202(c).

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-ADACDB, 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)).

The proposed guardian ad litem, Plaintiff Maria Doe, is the mother of Plaintiff I.D. (Doc.

102-3 at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff Maria Doe represents she believes she is the appropriate person to be 

appointed guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 102-3 at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff Maria Doe states she does not have 

any conflict of interest with Plaintiff I.D. (Id.) Based on the representations in Plaintiff Maria 

Doe’s declaration, and a review of the operative complaint, the court finds no conflicts in Plaintiff 

Maria Doe’s claims and Plaintiff I.D.’s claims. See J.M. v. Liberty Union High Sch. Dist., No. 16-

cv-05225-LB, 2016 WL 4942999, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2024) (“Generally, when a minor is 

represented by a parent who is a party to the lawsuit and who has the same interests as the child 

there is no inherent conflict of interest.”). Further, the court finds Plaintiff Maria Doe to be an 

appropriate guardian ad litem for Plaintiff I.D. and the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) have 

been satisfied.

The motion also meets the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). Counsel Ezra Kautz 

declares he is a staff attorney at California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (“CRLAF”), which 

was retained by Plaintiffs to represent them. (Doc. No. 102-1 at ¶¶ 2, 5.) Counsel Kautz asserts 

CRLAF did not become involved in this action at the instance of any defendant or any other 

person aside from Plaintiffs, and CLRAF has no relationship with any of the parties or attorneys 

in this lawsuit. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Further, Counsel Kautz states CRLAF is representing Plaintiffs 

without charge and CRLAF has the right to seek attorney fees from Defendants where provided 

by statute. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for the appointment of Plaintiff Maria Doe 

as a guardian ad litem for Plaintiff I.D. is granted.

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 107 Filed 01/03/25 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint Plaintiff Maria Doe as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff 

I.D. (Doc. No. 102) is granted; and

2. Plaintiff Maria Doe is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff I.D. and is 

authorized to prosecute the action on her behalf; and

3. The motion hearing set for January 17, 2025, is vacated, to be reset at a later date 

if the court determines that oral argument is needed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 107 Filed 01/03/25 Page 4 of 4