Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01948/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

18-CV-1948-LAB(WVG) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

E.D. et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 18-CV-1948-LAB(WVG) 

ORDER (1) GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL 

AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO APPOINT GUARDIAN 

AD LITEM 

[Doc. No. 9, 10 & 11.] 

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ ex parte applications to file under seal and for 

appointment of guardian ad litem. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10 & 11.) Plaintiffs request that the Court 

appoint Plaintiff E.D.’s mother, M.D., as E.D.’s guardian ad litem pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 17(c). In support of their applications, they have submitted the 

declaration of M.D. (“M.D. Decl.,” Doc. No. 11-1.) 

A. Application for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem 

Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “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” and that 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.” The purpose of Rule 17(c) “is to protect an incompetent 

Case 3:18-cv-01948-LAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18-CV-1948-LAB(WVG) 

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

person’s interests in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit.” Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 

1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court has “broad discretion” to fashion appropriate 

safeguards to protect the interests of incompetent persons and to decide whether to appoint 

a guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c). Id.; Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 

2014). 

A person’s capacity to sue is determined by the law of the individual’s domicile. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). E.D. is domiciled in California where “[m]inors lack capacity to 

sue in their own names” and “litigation must be conducted by a guardian or conservator of 

the estate or by a guardian ad litem.” Safai v. Safai, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759, 768 (Cal. Ct. 

App. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). E.D. is currently under the age of 18 and 

therefore lacks the capacity to sue in the state of California.

The Court finds that the appointment of M.D. as E.D.’s guardian ad litem is an 

appropriate and sufficient protection of her interests in this case. As E.D.’s mother, M.D. 

is likely to be “truly dedicated” to her best interests. See Coal. of Clergy, Lawyers, & 

Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the Court has not 

identified a conflict of interest between M.D. and E.D. See Bhatia v. Corrigan, No. C 07-

2054 CW, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39620, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 

2007) (“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”); Brown 

v. Alexander, No. 13-CV-01451-RS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158064, 2015 WL 7350183, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015) (“In general, a parent who is also a party to the lawsuit is 

presumed to be a suitable guardian ad litem, and so the court often appoints the parent as 

guardian ad litem upon receipt of an ex parte application without exercising much 

discretion.”) The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ application for appointment of M.D. 

as E.D.’s guardian ad litem. 

B. Application to File Under Seal 

Plaintiffs have also moved to file their application for appointment of guardian ad 

litem under seal. Plaintiffs’ unredacted application includes the full name of E.D. and the 

Case 3:18-cv-01948-LAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18-CV-1948-LAB(WVG) 

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

address of E.D. and her mother. The Court finds that in the protection of the privacy of 

E.D. constitutes good cause to seal this filing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for 

Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016) (in motions only “tangentially related to the underlying 

cause of action” moving parties need show only good cause for sealing). Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the proposed document filed as Docket No. 11 is GRANTED, 

and this document shall be file under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 3, 2019 

Case 3:18-cv-01948-LAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 05/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3