Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01512/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01512-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LISA PERRIZO, RANO PERRIZO, and 

K.P., a minor, by and through his guardians 

ad litem LISA PERRIZO and RANO 

PERRIZO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF 

EDUCATION, NANCY GUERRERO, 

CAROLINA LLURIA, APRIL CARLSON, 

DAVID DRIESBACH, and DOES 1-30,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-01512 HRL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS AD 

LITEM

[Re: Dkt. 9]

Lisa and Rano Perrizo (Parents) request appointment as guardians ad litem for their son, 

K.P. Specifically, Lisa Rano asks to be appointed guardian ad litem, and Rano Perrizo asks to be 

appointed co-guardian ad litem.

Usually, “only one party may act in a representative capacity with respect to an infant or 

incompetent who comes before the court.” Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642, 650 

(2d Cir. 1999) (citing Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 693 (10th Cir. 1989)). Permitting two 

parties to represent minor children interferes with the orderly development of the lawsuit because 

the minor children could take inconsistent positions through multiple representatives. Garrick, 

888 F.2d at 693. Parents would have this court find that they have no conflicts of interest because 

Case 5:15-cv-01512-EJD Document 10 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

they “brought this action solely on behalf of their minor child . . ..” (Dkt. 9-4 at 3). However, the 

amended complaint (the operative pleading) states that Parents are also suing for themselves. 

(Dkt. 7). Nevertheless, on the record presented, it is not apparent that Parents’ appointment will 

interfere with the orderly development of this lawsuit, and the court finds no basis to discredit 

Parents’ representation as to their lack of any conflicting or adverse interests vis-a-vis those of 

K.P. Accordingly, the court, in its discretion, grants their motion.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2015

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:15-cv-01512-EJD Document 10 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

5:15-cv-01512-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Peter Wayne Alfert palfert@hintonalfert.com, astauber@hintonalfert.com, 

mballer@hintonalfert.com, ngonzalez@hintonalfert.com

Todd Alexander Boley boley@boleylaw.com, feldman@boleylaw.com, irasga@boleylaw.com

Zoya Yarnykh zyarnykh@gmail.com, irasga@boleylaw.com, yarnykh@boleylaw.com

Case 5:15-cv-01512-EJD Document 10 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3