Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01258/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01258-2/pdf.json

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

1

 D.H.’s current counsel violated Rule 5.2(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., when they initially

filed this lawsuit and the Amended Complaint by using D.H.’s full name instead of her

initials only. (Docs. 1, 28) It would be unduly burdensome for the Clerk of Court at this time

to redact D.H.’s full name in every document in this voluminous record or counsel to re-file

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

W. Eric Hulstedt, permanent guardian and

permanent conservator of David Hulstedt,

an adult; Richard M. Gerry, as guardian ad

litem for D.H., a minor; Walter Hulstedt

and Janice Hulstedt, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Scottsdale, Arizona; Richard

Slavin; James Dorer; Deven Fellows;

Marcos Garcia; Frank O’Halloran; Hugh

Lockerby; Mark Clark; Daniel Greene;

Brooke Scritchfield; Michael Hertko;

Matthew Miller; Scott Smith; Mark

Toschik; Wendy Field; Larry Marmie, Jr.;

Eugene McClanahan; Brian Hartman;

Brian Rauch; Christina Trott, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1258-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On March 1, 2011, the formerly assigned District Judge, the Honorable Mary

H. Murguia, vacated her November 10, 2010 order appointing Plaintiff Eric Hulstedt as

guardian ad litem for D.H., a minor,1

 and ordered that “an independent person” be appointed

Case 2:09-cv-01258-GMS Document 183 Filed 03/28/11 Page 1 of 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

documents which used D.H’s full name. The Court will enter an order, however, that all

counsel, parties, and D.H.’s guardian ad litem will hereinafter use the child’s initials, rather

than the child’s full name, in all filings unless the document is filed under seal in compliance

with LRCiv 5.6. The Court will also order the Clerk of Court to redact the child’s full name

in the Complaint, Amended Complaint, and list of parties in the docket to mitigate the

violations of Rule 5.2(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P.

- 2 -

as guardian ad litem for her in this case. (Doc. 178 at 6-7) Judge Murguia also referred the

selection and appointment of a guardian ad litem to a United States magistrate judge

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, LRCiv 72.1, and 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b). (Id. at 7) The undersigned

Magistrate Judge received the referral because he is the randomly assigned Magistrate Judge

in this case. On March 15, 2011 by random lot, the Honorable G. Murray Snow, United

States District Judge, was reassigned this case due to Judge Murguia’s recent elevation to

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 182)

After reviewing the file and considering the child’s conflicted family interests

and opinions regarding D.H.’s participation in this lawsuit, the Court finds that no immediate

family member on either D.H.’s mother’s or father’s side could reliably and independently

represent D.H.’s best interests in this lawsuit. Stewart v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 227, 230,

787 P.2d 126, 129 (Az.Ct.App. 1989) (parental conflicts of interest may warrant temporary

appointment of guardian ad litem pursuant to a court’s “non-exclusive codifications of an

equitable power and responsibility dating back to chancery days.”). The Court concludes that

good cause exists to appoint a guardian ad litem that does not have “a significant

relationship with” D.H. to ensure the objective representation of the child’s best interests

herein. Gonzalez v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., 2009 WL 383535, * 1 (D.Ariz., Feb.13,

2009). 

In the exercise of its discretion, the Court appoints Richard M. Gerry, Esq.,

with the law firm of Aiken, Schenk, Hawkins & Ricciardi, P.C., 4742 N 24th Street, Suite

100, Phoenix, AZ 85016-4859, phone number (602) 248-8203, as guardian ad litem for

D.H. in this case. Mr. Gerry is a seasoned, successful Phoenix personal injury trial attorney

who has been, and currently is, a member in good standing with the State Bar of Arizona

Case 2:09-cv-01258-GMS Document 183 Filed 03/28/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

since 1978. The duration of Mr. Gerry’s appointment is temporary until the conclusion of

D.H.’s interests in this lawsuit, Mr. Gerry’s voluntary renunciation as D.H.’s guardian ad

litem, or further order of the Court upon a showing of good cause. 

Although he is not D.H.’s attorney of record in this lawsuit, absent further

court order, Mr. Gerry, as an officer of the District Court, shall enjoy all powers, privileges

and immunities to determine, direct, and act upon D.H.’s bests interests as they may relate,

directly or indirectly, to this litigation except as expressly stated herein. Widoff v. Wiens, 202

Ariz. 383, 45 P.3d 1232 (Az.Ct.App. 2002) (guardian ad litem is protected from suit by

judicial immunity); Krause v. Krause, 138 Fed.Appx. 911 (9th Cir. 2005) (following

California law); Kulya v. City and County of San Francisco, 2007 WL 760776, * 2

(N.D.Cal., Mar. 9, 2007); Ward v. San Diego County Dep’t of Social Servs., 691 F.Supp. 238

(S.D.Cal. 1988). Mr. Gerry’s powers and authority shall include, but are not limited to,

whether to discharge or retain D.H.’s current counsel of record; to employ different, conflictfree counsel to represent D.H. on a contingency fee and advancement-of-costs basis only;

to determine whether claims or causes of action, which have not been alleged, should be

alleged on D.H.’s behalf against any current party or non-party; and to decide if it is in

D.H.’s best interests to remain a party in this lawsuit or move for her voluntary dismissal

from this action. 

No claim brought on behalf of D.H., however, may be settled or compromised,

or a voluntary dismissal of D.H. from this lawsuit may be sought, absent an order of the

Court after a finding that such request is in D.H.’s best interests. Application by D.H.’s

counsel for court approval of settlement or dismissal must be by formal motion filed in this

District Court under this case number. Secondly, if money, or a combination of money and

structured settlement, is recovered on behalf of D.H. in this lawsuit by judgment or

settlement after court approval, such money, after deduction of D.H.’s reasonable attorneys’

fees and costs, shall be deposited in a secure, interest-bearing bank account or other

appropriate federally-insured account, and shall not be disbursed to D.H. until after her 18th

birthday by court order or upon further order of the Court. See, e.g., Dacanay v. Mendoza,

Case 2:09-cv-01258-GMS Document 183 Filed 03/28/11 Page 3 of 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

2

 The fictitious Does 1-10 defendants were removed from the caption because the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for the use of fictitious parties. Wenzel v.

Arpaio, 2009 WL 4154926, * 3 (D. Ariz. 2009) (“Generally, the use of anonymous type

appellations to identify defendants is not favored. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure requires the plaintiff to include the names of the parties in the action.”); Fifty

Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1970) (citations omitted)

- 4 -

573 F.2d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir. 1978) (trial court must approve minor’s settlement agreement

negotiated by, or with the approval of, the guardian ad litem); Parrish v. Alameda County,

2007 WL 2904253 (N.D.Cal., Oct. 3, 2007) (detailed order approving minors’ settlements).

Mr. Gerry’s fees for his representation of D.H. as her guardian ad litem shall

be at the reasonable, modest, and agreed-upon rate of $150.00 per hour. The guardian ad

litem’s reasonable fees, costs and expenses advanced, if any, are deemed court costs to be

paid by the non-prevailing party in this lawsuit. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) (“Compensation

of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and

costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d);

Adamson v. Hayes, 2010 WL 5069885, * 5 n. 4 (D.Ariz., Dec. 7, 2010) (citing, among

others, United States v. Ruger, Model 223 Mini Rifle, Serial No. 18492495, 2009 WL

2591145, * 3 (W.D.N.C., Aug. 19, 2009) (“As an officer of the court, the expenses of a

guardian ad litem are properly taxable as costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d).”)); A.D. v.

California Highway Patrol, 2009 WL 3817478, * 6 (N.D.Cal., Nov. 10, 2009). In the event

of a settlement of all parties’ claims in this lawsuit and pursuant to its inherent authority, this

lawsuit may not be dismissed unless and until the guardian ad litem’s fees, costs and

expenses advanced, if any, are paid in full by either agreement of the parties or upon

apportionment by the Court after reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard

considering the nature and amount of the settlement, the parties’ means, and the extent to

which any party is more responsible than other parties for escalating the guardian ad litem’s

fees, costs and expenses advanced, if any.

Counsel shall use the above caption on all future filings until further order of

the Court.2

 D.H.’s mother; grandparents, Walter Hulstedt and Janice Hulstedt; father’s

Case 2:09-cv-01258-GMS Document 183 Filed 03/28/11 Page 4 of 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

(“In the federal courts ‘John Doe’ casts no magical spell on a complaint otherwise lacking

in diversity jurisdiction.”); Tolefree v. Ritz, 382 F.2d 566, 567 (9th Cir. 1967) (per curiam)

(case “was also properly dismissed as to the fictitious defendants[,]” citing Molnar v.

National Broadcasting Company, 231 F.2d 684, 687 (9th Cir. 1956)). 

- 5 -

guardian, W. Eric Hulstedt; their counsel; and present counsel, Alan M. Simpson, E. Thomas

Barham, Jr., and Sean R. Forrester shall cooperate with Mr. Gerry in his capacity as D.H.’s

guardian ad litem if ethical and appropriate to do so.

The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to provide Mr. Gerry with a copy of this

order and add him as D.H.’s guardian ad litem as if he were, which he is not, D.H.’s counsel

of record in this case.

All counsel, parties, and D.H.’s guardian ad litem will hereinafter use the

child’s initials, rather than the child’s full name, in all filings unless the document is filed

under seal in compliance with LRCiv 5.6. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to redact

the child’s full name in the Complaint, Amended Complaint, and list of parties in the docket

to mitigate counsels’ violations of Rule 5.2(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Dated this 28th day of March, 2011. 

Case 2:09-cv-01258-GMS Document 183 Filed 03/28/11 Page 5 of 5