Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06539/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06539-4/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

GEORGIY KULYA individually and on behalf

of his minor child YVAN KULYA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06539 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss the named Plaintiff Yvan Kulya filed by

Defendants City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Police Department, City and County of

San Francisco Human Services Agency, Tracy McCray, Fitzgerald Wong, Maris Goldsborough,

Craig Wilson, Benny Lew, Tim Laird, Deborah Goldstein, Ivey Nzarem, and Fay Ali (collectively

“Defendants”). Having considered the parties’ papers and the relevant legal authority, and having

had the benefit of oral argument and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion

without prejudice.

Case 3:06-cv-06539-JSW Document 35 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 Prior to briefing on the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff Georgiy did not file an application to

proceed as his son’s guardian ad litem. To the extent such an application was filed in opposition to the

motion to dismiss, such application is HEREBY DENIED.

2

BACKGROUND

Georgiy Kulya filed a complaint for violation of civil rights, for false arrest, and for

intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of himself as an individual, and on behalf of his

minor son, Yvan Kulya as his guardian ad litem.

1

 The complaint arises from an incident in which

Yvan’s mother, Susanna Reyngach, took Yvan to the police station to file charges of child abuse

against Georgiy. (Compl. ¶ 37.) An investigation of the allegations resulted in Georgiy spending a

night in jail and Yvan later spending a night in a shelter. (Compl. ¶ 43, 58.) The San Francisco

District Attorney’s Office declined to file criminal charges after further investigation. (Compl. ¶ 66-

67.) Georgiy filed the current lawsuit against the City and various City employees including police

officers and social workers involved in the events for violation of his own and his son’s civil rights.

Defendant moves to dismiss all causes of action by Plaintiff Yvan because his father failed

properly to appoint a guardian ad litem. 

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard for Guardian Ad Litem.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 applies to the capacity to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17. 

State law should be applied to determine capacity to sue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). In California, a

minor must be represented by a guardian ad litem in court proceedings. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §

372(a). If the minor is a plaintiff in a cause of action then a guardian ad litem must be appointed

before issuance of the summons. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 373(a).

“A court has broad discretion in ruling on a guardian ad litem application.” Williams v.

Superior Court of San Diego, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47 (2007) (citing In re Emily R., 80 Cal. App.

Case 3:06-cv-06539-JSW Document 35 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

4th 1344, 1356 (2000)). When there is no conflict of interest, the guardian ad litem appointment is

usually made on ex parte application and involves minimal exercise of discretion by the trial court. 

In re Marriage of Caballero, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1139, 1149 (1994).

The guardian ad litem’s main focus is the best interests of the minor. Briggs v. Briggs, 160

Cal. App. 2d 312, 319 (1958). The guardian ad litem is an officer of the court with the right to

control the minor’s litigation. De Los Santos v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. 3d 677, 683-

84 (1980). “The guardian ad litem’s role is more than an attorney’s but less than a party’s.” In re

Josiah Z., 36 Cal. 4th 664, 678 (2005). When choosing a guardian ad litem for a civil lawsuit, the

most important issue is protection of the minor’s interest in the litigation. Williams, 147 Cal. App.

4th at 47.

B. Procedural Failure to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem Prior to Filing Complaint.

Here, Georgiy filed the complaint on behalf of Yvan without first properly appointing a

guardian ad litem. Consequently, the lawsuit was not properly filed on behalf of Yvan because he

does not have a guardian ad litem and as a minor, he cannot represent himself. See Cal Code Civ.

Proc. § 373(a).

C. Conflict of Interest.

Defendants argue that there is a conflict of interest between Yvan and Georgiy because

allegations of Georgiy’s abuse instigated the chain of events resulting in Georgiy spending a night in

jail and the temporary removal of Yvan from Georgiy’s custody. “If the parent has an actual or

potential conflict of interest with his child, the parent has no right to control or influence the child’s

litigation.” Williams, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 50. “A parent with a conflict of interest is no longer a

‘fit’ parent for the narrow purposes of controlling litigation decisions on behalf of the child.” Id. If

a parent has complaints regarding the conduct of the guardian ad litem, they can bring those issues

to the court’s attention. Id. at 51. As an officer of the court, the guardian ad litem’s conduct is

Case 3:06-cv-06539-JSW Document 35 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

monitored by the court. Id. After a parent has determined that the child should take legal action, the

focus shifts to determine the best way to protect the minor’s interest in the lawsuit. Id. at 52-53. 

“Under such circumstances, a parent with a conflict of interest is not entitled to select the guardian

ad litem or control the tactical or strategic legal decisions made by the guardian and/or the child’s

attorney.” Id. at 53.

Clearly there is at a minimum a potential conflict of interest between Georgiy and Yvan

because of the allegations of abuse which form the ostensible basis for Defendants’ subsequent

conduct. As a result, despite being Yvan’s father, Georgiy is not a suitable choice for guardian ad

litem in this litigation. Yvan’s mother is also not an appropriate guardian ad litem because of the

allegations that she made a false report to the police regarding the allegations of child abuse.

D. Appointing a Guardian Ad Litem for Yvan.

At oral argument, the parties were unable to reach an agreement about a suitable guardian ad

litem for minor Yvan. The Court ORDERS each party to submit by electronic-filing a list of three

suitable guardians, with their contact information, by no later than March 23, 2007. There shall be

no oral communications between the parties and the potential guardians, although the parties may

jointly draft a letter to potential candidates inquiring into the candidate’s possible conflicts and

instructing the candidate to respond in writing to counsel for both parties. In order to ensure the

largest possible candidate pool, the parties should do appropriate preliminary due diligence to avoid

possible conflicts of interest. The parties should avoid suggesting any candidate who is employed

by the City and County of San Francisco.

By separate order, the Court will refer the matter of appointment of the guardian to

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James to prepare a report and recommendation on an expedited basis. 

Magistrate James shall consider the parties’ suggested candidates, but is not limited to a selection

among them. The appointed guardian ad litem shall have the discretion to review the factual

Case 3:06-cv-06539-JSW Document 35 Filed 03/09/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

allegations of the complaint and determine what, if any, legal claims are in Yvan’s best interest to

pursue. In addition, should the appointed guardian find it in Yvan’s interests to pursue the claims,

the guardian must determine whether or not to retain separate counsel or to retain Robert R. Powell

as counsel for the minor.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Yvan’s claims is GRANTED

without prejudice. By separate order, the Court refers the matter of appointment of a guardian ad

litem to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for an expedited report and recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2007 

Jeffrey S. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06539-JSW Document 35 Filed 03/09/07 Page 5 of 5