Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01876/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01876-4/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANET DEAN, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C-05-01876 EDL

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

On February 28, 2006, Plaintiffs filed two petitions for appointment of guardians ad litem. 

Plaintiff Sarah Beck, the mother of Plaintiff Matthew Dean, seeks to be appointed as the guardian ad

litem for Matthew. Plaintiff Janet Dean, the grandmother of Plaintiffs Daryl and Mareta Dean, seeks

to be appointed as the guardian ad litem for Daryl and Mareta. Defendant opposed the petitions and

the Court held a hearing on March 21, 2006. On March 27, 2006, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a

declaration from Kelly Boswell, the mother of Daryl and Mareta, consenting to the appointment of

Janet Dean as guardian ad litem for Ms. Boswell’s children. 

The Court finds that the petitions are timely. Unlike California law, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 17, which is the applicable rule in this case, does not contain a time constraint for filing a

petition for guardian ad litem. Compare Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 373(a) (“If the minor is the plaintiff

the appointment must be made before the summons is issued . . . .”) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (“The

court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented

in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or

incompetent person.”); see also Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001) (“It is well

established that the appointment of a guardian ad litem is a procedural question controlled by Rule

17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); see also 6A Charles Wright & Arthur Miller &

Case 3:05-cv-01876-EDL Document 42 Filed 03/28/06 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

Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1571, at 511-12 (1991) (the Erie doctrine does

not require application of state law to guardian ad litem applications); Moore’s Federal Practice, §

17.21[3] (“To determine whether an individual is considered a minor or incompetent person, Rule

17(c) must be read in conjunction with Rule 17(b). Under Rule 17(b), the capacity of an individual

to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the individual’s domicile. Thus, whenever an

individual lacks capacity to sue or be sued under the law of the individual’s domicile because the

individual is underage or is otherwise incompetent, the provisions of Rule 17(c) come into play and

the court must appoint a guardian ad litem or make some other provision for the protection of the

individual. At this stage in the process, the court is not guided by state law but rather should be

guided by the protection of the individual’s interests.”). 

Moreover, the Court finds that appointment of the proposed guardians ad litem will be in the

minors’ best interests. The guardians ad litem do not have interests adverse to the minors and would

act to protect the minors’ rights. For these reasons and those stated at the hearing, the petitions for

appointment of guardian ad litem are granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01876-EDL Document 42 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2