Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” 

YEAGER (RET.), et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

In a previous order, the court found that the appointment of a guardian ad litem 

was necessary to protect the interests of General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager (Ret.) in this case. 

Order Nov. 10, 2015, ECF No. 223. In this order the court appoints James E. Houpt as guardian 

ad litem. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

As discussed in the court’s previous order, see id. at 9–17, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 17(c) may require a court to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect an incompetent 

person during litigation. See Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014); 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). 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 227 Filed 12/28/15 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 

2

A guardian ad litem need not possess any special qualifications. See 6A Charles 

A. Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1572 (3d ed.). But in general a guardian ad litem must 

be truly dedicated to the best interests of the ward. See, e.g., Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 

149, 163–64 (1990). He must not face a conflict of interest. See, e.g., Z.A. ex rel. K.A. v. St. 

Helena Unified Sch. Dist., No. 09-03557, 2010 WL 370333, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2010); 

Bhatia v. Corrigan, No. 07-2054, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2007). Courts 

may also consider a potential guardian’s experience, objectivity, expertise, and any previous 

relationship with the ward. See Nichols v. Nichols, No. 10-651, 2011 WL 2470135, at *4 (D. Or. 

June 20, 2011). In addition, because “a non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for 

others than himself,’” if a guardian ad litem is not a lawyer, he or she must be represented in turn 

by counsel. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876–77 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. 

Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

A guardian ad litem acts under the court’s supervision and is an officer of the 

court. Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642, 652 (2d Cir. 1999); Dacanay v. Mendoza, 

573 F.2d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir. 1978). “[E]very step in the proceeding occurs under the aegis of 

the court.” Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1079. For example, although a guardian ad litem “may 

negotiate a proposed compromise to be referred to the court, he cannot render such a compromise 

effective merely by giving his consent. . . . It is the court’s order approving the settlement that 

vests the guardian ad litem with the legal power to enforce the agreement.” Id. (citations 

omitted). The court can remove or replace the guardian ad litem if he or she does not properly 

represent the ward’s interests. Neilson, 199 F.3d at 652 (citing Hull By Hull v. United States, 

53 F.3d 1125, 1127 n.1 (10th Cir. 1995), and Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 693 (10th Cir. 

1989)). 

The court may tax the fees of a guardian ad litem as costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). See, e.g., Gaddis v. United States, 381 F.3d 444, 456–

57 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Kollsman, a Div. of Sequa Corp. v. Cohen, 996 F.2d 702, 706 (4th 

Cir. 1993); Hull by Hull v. United States, 971 F.2d 1499, 1510 (10th Cir. 1992); Schneider v. 

Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 658 F.2d 835, 853 (D.C. Cir. 1981), abrogated on other grounds as 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 227 Filed 12/28/15 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

recognized in Williams Enterprises, Inc. v. Sherman R. Smoot Co., 938 F.2d 230, 237 (D.C. Cir. 

1991). Generally speaking, “[t]o the extent the guardian ad litem acts as an officer of the court, 

looking after the interests of the [ward], compensation is taxable as costs. To the extent the 

guardian ad litem performs legal services as an attorney, compensation should be deducted as 

attorney’s fees.” Hull, 971 F.2d at 1510 (citing duPont v. Southern Nat’l Bank, 771 F.2d 874, 

882–83 (5th Cir. 1985); Schneider, 658 F.2d at 854–55; and Franz v. Buder, 38 F.2d 605, 607 

(8th Cir. 1930)). 

II. DISCUSSION 

In its previous order, the court considered three persons proposed as candidates to 

be guardian ad litem, but concluded none could be appointed. See Order Nov. 11, 2015, at 16–17 

(declining to appoint Victoria Yeager, Jerry Karnow, and Tammy Karnow). Should a qualified 

candidate for guardian ad litem not be readily available, the court has several options at its 

disposal, including in this court consultation with Eastern District of California’s Pro Bono 

Coordinator and inquiries with bar associations, law schools with clinical programs, or senior 

centers with social workers. Davis, 745 F.3d at 1311. 

The court has consulted with the District’s Pro Bono Coordinator and has 

identified James E. Houpt as a candidate to be General Yeager’s guardian ad litem. Mr. Houpt is 

Senior Counsel in General Litigation in the Sacramento Office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 

LLP. He is a member of the California bar in good standing. He is admitted to practice before 

the courts of this District, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. He is a 1992 law graduate of 

Harvard Law School. Before law school, he earned a Bachelor of Arts from California State 

University and worked as a radio and television reporter covering courts and legal issues. He also 

served in the United States Navy from 1970 to 1974 aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Oriskany 

during and after the Vietnam conflict. Mr. Houpt has provided the court with a copy of his 

resume, which is filed in conjunction with this order. 

Mr. Houpt and his firm conducted a conflicts check to ensure he would face no 

conflicts of interest were he appointed as General Yeager’s guardian ad litem. The court is also 

aware of no conflicts of interest he or his firm would face were he appointed. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 227 Filed 12/28/15 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 

4

Mr. Houpt prepared a letter for General Yeager and Victoria Yeager to introduce 

himself and memorialize some aspects of his anticipated appointment. He also clarified that his 

representation of General Yeager as guardian ad litem would be at no cost to General Yeager or 

the court and would not offset any award to which General Yeager would be entitled in this case. 

The court has reviewed that letter and has determined Mr. Houpt will be truly dedicated to 

General Yeager’s best interests, fulfilling the duties of a guardian ad litem, and serving as an 

officer of the court. The letter will also be filed in conjunction with this order. 

III. CONCLUSION 

In light of his qualifications and experience and in the absence of any conflict of 

interest, the court APPOINTS James E. Houpt as guardian ad litem for General Yeager in this 

case, No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD. The court also ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Mr. Houpt will act as an officer of the court to undertake an investigation 

and submit a written report and recommendation, which may contain legal opinions, of any action 

or actions that the court may take to protect General Yeager’s best interests in this case, and to 

ascertain and propose any means to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this 

case. 

2. Consistent with the authority summarized above, Mr. Houpt is not 

appointed as General Yeager’s or any other person’s attorney in this action. To be clear, as 

guardian ad litem, he does not represent General Yeager’s interests as an attorney to a client or to 

litigate General Yeager’s claims or defenses in this case or any related case, and the appointment 

does not create an attorney-client relationship between General Yeager and Mr. Houpt, or 

between any other party in this case and Mr. Houpt. 

3. Because communications between Mr. Houpt and any parties are not 

protected by attorney-client privilege, to the extent that Mr. Houpt believes in his discretion that 

he must protect any confidential information, Mr. Houpt is authorized to file a redacted report in 

the public docket of this case, and to concurrently provide the court with a sealed, unredacted 

report. The court retains its authority to later file publicly all or part of the unredacted report, and 

any party-in-interest may move for disclosure of the unredacted report or any portion of it. Mr. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 227 Filed 12/28/15 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 

5

Houpt may answer or appear to defend his decision to maintain the confidentiality of any 

information. 

4. Mr. Houpt’s role is limited to the consideration of General Yeager’s 

interests in this case, though the court recognizes that Mr. Houpt’s investigation may require that 

he review the docket and certain documents in related cases, and to interview certain parties and 

counsel in those related cases. 

5. As an officer of the court, Mr. Houpt may request assistance of the court’s 

staff in his review of the dockets and documents filed in this case and related cases. The parties 

and counsel in this case and the related cases shall cooperate with Mr. Houpt in the investigation 

of General Yeager’s best interests. 

6. Mr. Houpt has agreed to act as guardian ad litem pro bono publico and 

without fee for his time, though Mr. Houpt will be entitled to seek reimbursement from the court 

for any reasonable expenses pursuant to local rules and practices of this court and as summarized 

in this order. 

7. This Order may be modified only by the court after notice and an 

opportunity for any interested party to be heard. 

8. A status conference is SET for January 7, 2016, at 3:30 p.m. in 

Courtroom 3 before the undersigned. The parties shall be prepared to discuss the schedule of this 

case and the possible appointment of Mr. Houpt as guardian ad litem in the related case, 

No. 2:14-cv-02544-KJM-CKD. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 28, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 227 Filed 12/28/15 Page 5 of 5