Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007-15/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 

On June 2, 2015, the court held a hearing to determine whether General Charles E. 

“Chuck” Yeager (Ret.) would consent to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent him 

in this litigation. General Yeager did not give consent. For the reasons below, a hearing and 

briefing schedule are set on General Yeager’s competence to continue in this case without 

representation.

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Procedural History 

On October 10, 2014, Intervenor Parsons Behle & Latimer moved to enforce its 

settlement agreement with General Yeager and his wife, Victoria Yeager. ECF No. 128. In a 

previous order, the court concluded the agreement is enforceable if the attorney who signed it on 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 205 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 6
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

General Yeager’s behalf, Parker White, had authority to do so. Order Nov. 21, 2014, ECF 

No. 139. 

The court held an evidentiary hearing on March 24, 2015, to allow the parties to 

present evidence on White’s authority. See Minutes, ECF No. 167. At that hearing, General 

Yeager represented himself, and Victoria Yeager represented herself. Based on General Yeager’s 

demeanor and responses to the court’s questions at the hearing, the court developed a concern that 

he is not competent to continue without representation. Order Mar. 26, 2015, ECF No. 169. The 

court ordered the parties to address the court’s impression that a hearing on General Yeager’s 

competency is required. Id. The parties submitted responsive briefs on May 12, 2015. ECF Nos. 

180, 182, 183. 

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the 

court found that substantial evidence cast doubt on General Yeager’s competence. Order May 21, 

2015, ECF No. 185. The court set a hearing for June 2, 2015, at which General Yeager was to 

appear and (1) advise the court whether he would consent to the appointment of a guardian ad 

litem; (2) identify the names of two persons who are able to serve as guardian ad litem; and 

(3) explain each proposed guardian ad litem’s qualifications and say whether each would consent 

to fulfilling that role. Id.

On May 26, 2015, General and Mrs. Yeager requested the June 2 hearing be 

continued for forty-three days, citing medical appointments and a busy hearing schedule in other 

pending cases. Ex Parte App. Continue, ECF No. 186. Parsons Behle filed an opposition, Opp’n, 

ECF No. 190, and the court denied the request, Minute Order, ECF No. 191.

B. Consent Hearing 

The hearing went forward as scheduled. General Yeager and Victoria Yeager 

appeared, each pro se. Kennedy Luvai appeared on behalf of Parsons Behle, and Mark Serlin 

appeared on behalf of the Bowlin parties. General Yeager was provided with a headset to amplify 

the court’s and the parties’ speech. The court’s staff also provided simultaneous written 

transcription of the hearing, which was displayed on a screen General Yeager could see and read.

A few minutes into the hearing, in an effort to ensure General Yeager could hear and see the court 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 205 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 6
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

and understand its questions, the court stepped down from the bench and stood at the lectern 

immediately in front of General Yeager. 

General Yeager confirmed several times that he could hear the court’s questions 

and could read them on the screen. When asked whether he understood the purpose of the 

hearing, he expressed confusion and did not respond. When asked whether he understood what a 

guardian or guardian ad litem was, he was again confused and did not answer. When asked 

whether he was willing to have the court appoint someone to assist him with the litigation, he 

said, “Next question.” When asked again, he said he would appoint Mrs. Yeager. The court’s 

previous order clarified that because Mrs. Yeager’s interests in this litigation differ from those of 

General Yeager, she cannot be appointed as his guardian ad litem. Order May 21, 2015, at 6, 

ECF No. 185. When the court asked whether General Yeager would agree to the appointment of 

some other person, he did not respond. 

Mrs. Yeager informed the court General Yeager had brought a written declaration 

to the hearing, and the court asked General Yeager whether he wanted to read it. He read the 

names of the some of the parties in this case, apparently from the caption, and then read the 

following:

I, Charles E. Yeager, declare I object to the court stopping me from 

assigning Victoria Yeager as guardian ad litem. I’m quite able to 

make decisions such as whichever1

 to settle and on what terms. 

Rough Tr. 15:11–14. General Yeager expressed surprise after reading these sentences and asked 

the court, “Are you objecting if Victoria helps me?” Id. at 15:18. The court asked General 

Yeager whether he wanted to read anything else from the declaration, and he responded “Other 

than ‘I, Charles E. Yeager declare’ and a couple of sentences.” Id. at 15:23–24. After a 

discussion with the other parties, the court again asked General Yeager whether he had anything 

else to say, and he said no. Id. at 18:12–14. 

1

 In the copy of the declaration filed after the hearing, this sentence reads, “I am quite able 

to make decisions such as whether to settle and on what terms.” Gen. Yeager Decl. ¶¶ 1–2, ECF 

No. 194. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 205 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 6
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

The court allowed the written declaration to be filed after the hearing. The 

sentences General Yeager read at the hearing appear on its first page. See Gen. Yeager Decl. 

¶¶ 1–2, ECF No. 194. On the declaration’s second page, it continues: 

I have hearing loss which prevents me from being able to hear all 

the details and keep up with the speed of Court. 

If I get to still make my own decisions and the guardian for this 

Federal case is only to help the Court and me in Court hearings, 

procedures, and communications; I consent to Victoria Yeager, 

Jerry Karnow, and/or Tammy Karnow, as my guardian, in that 

order.

All three have agreed to serve as guardian for this case. 

Jerry Karnow is Game Warden for California Fish and Game. 

Tammy Karnow is a registered nurse. 

Id. ¶¶ 3–7. General Yeager’s signature follows, declaring “the foregoing to be true and correct 

under the laws of perjury of the State of California.” Id. at 2. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A person’s capacity to sue is measured by the standard of the law of his domicile, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1), here California state law, but federal law governs questions of 

appropriate procedure, Estate of Escobedo v. City of Redwood City, No. 03-03204, 2006 WL 

571354, at *7–9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2006) (citing, inter alia, Gibbs v. Carnival Cruise Lines,

314 F.3d 125, 134–35 (3rd Cir. 2002), M.S. v. Wermers, 557 F.2d 170, 174 n.4 (8th Cir. 1977)). 

The appointment of a guardian ad litem may affect a litigant’s due process rights.

See, e.g., 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) (holding a guardian ad litem has authority to hire a 

lawyer, hire expert witnesses, settle the case, and generally control the litigation); see also

Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971); Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,

199 F.3d 642, 651 (2d Cir. 1999); Thomas v. Humfield, 916 F.2d 1032, 1033–34 (5th Cir. 1990).

To determine what process is due, the court must consider (1) the interest affected, (2) the risk of 

an erroneous deprivation of that interest without an appropriate safeguard, and (3) the 

government’s interest, here the court’s interest in the just and efficient resolution of this case. See

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 205 Filed 08/11/15 Page 4 of 6
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

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334–35 (1976); see also Neilson, 199 F.3d at 651 (applying 

these factors to the appointment of a guardian ad litem); Thomas, 916 F.2d at 1034 (same). 

Federal courts have generally concluded that notice and a hearing are the minimum required. See,

e.g., Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 562 F.3d 1186, 1188 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Golden Gate Way, 

LLC v. Stewart, No. 09-04458, 2012 WL 4482053, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012). Otherwise, 

the details may vary from one case to the next. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 

(1972) (“[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular 

situation demands.”); Sturdza, 562 F.2d at 1188 (“When the party for whom the guardian is 

sought claims to be competent, at least ‘some hearing’ is required. Although this need not always 

take the form of a ‘full adversary hearing,’ at a minimum it entails ‘notice and an opportunity to 

be heard.’” (quoting Thomas 916 F.2d at 1033)); accord Nielson, 199 F.3d at 651. 

Here, General Yeager’s due process interest is his control of the litigation. Should 

the court conclude General Yeager is not competent to continue in this litigation pro se and 

appoint a guardian ad litem, his personal control of this litigation may be diminished. If the court 

underestimates his competence in error, he may be deprived of control of the litigation without 

justification. On the other side of the scale, as noted, the court’s interest is the just and efficient 

resolution of this litigation. The case cannot be resolved justly and efficiently if General Yeager 

cannot comprehend, prosecute, and control his case. He must have notice and an opportunity to 

be heard on the question. 

The court’s previous orders have informed General Yeager of the court’s concern 

that he is not competent to continue without representation. See ECF Nos. 169, 185. His 

behavior, demeanor, and answers to questions at the hearings on March 24, 2015 and June 2, 

2015 reaffirmed the court’s concerns. He was given notice and an opportunity to advise the court 

whether he would consent to the appointment of a guardian, but he could not answer the court’s 

questions, did not understand the purpose of the June 2 hearing, and did not consent to the 

appointment of a guardian. Although General Yeager’s written declaration describes his 

purported consent to the appointment of certain persons as guardians, he seemed unfamiliar with 

that document at the hearing, chose not to read the second page, and he appears not to have 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 205 Filed 08/11/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

known the critical second page existed. The court cannot rely on the declaration as reflecting his 

personal knowledge or accurately describing his consent. 

A hearing is therefore set below to receive evidence of General Yeager’s 

competence. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The court orders as follows: 

(1) A hearing is SET for Tuesday, August 25, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. General 

Yeager shall appear and be prepared to answer the court’s questions regarding his competence to 

proceed further without representation. Other parties may also appear at the hearing. The court 

credits General Yeager’s presence at hearings in this case to date. Should General Yeager not 

appear at the hearing set in this order, the court will consider his absence as consent to the 

appointment of any qualified guardian ad litem without further notice 

(2) By Friday, August 21, 2015, General Yeager shall submit any evidence of his 

competency for the court’s in camera review, without filing it on the docket. General Yeager 

may submit any such evidence by email to kjmorders@caed.uscourts.gov. By the same date, 

General Yeager shall file any requests for partial closure of the August 25 hearing or the sealing 

of documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 11, 2015. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 205 Filed 08/11/15 Page 6 of 6