Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00105-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM LEE JOHNSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOAN JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00105-LJO-SAB

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

(ECF Nos. 3, 10, 11)

On January 24, 2019, a complaint in this action was filed along with a petition for 

appointment of a guardian ad litem for William Lee Johnson (“Mr. Johnson”), an incompetent 

adult. Appointment of a guardian ad litem for Mr. Johnson is sought because he was critically 

injured in the incident alleged in the complaint. Competency to sue or be sued is determined by 

the law of the individual’s domicile. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). 

Under California law, “[t]he test for incompetence . . . is whether the party has the 

capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding, and is able to assist counsel 

in preparation of the case.” Lee v. Retail Store Employee Bldg. Corp., No. 15-CV-04768-LHK, 

2017 WL 565710, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2017) (quoting In re Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th 

1180, 1186 (2001)); A.A. on behalf of A.A. v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist., No. 

113CV01043AWIMJS, 2018 WL 1167927, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018), report and 

recommendation adopted sub nom. A.A. v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist., No. 113CV01043AWIMJS, 

2018 WL 1453243 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018). If a party is found to be incompetent based on this 

test, then that party may only appear in court through “a guardian or conservator of the estate or 

by a guardian ad litem.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372(a)(1).

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 12 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 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

2

In this instance, the complaint and petition alleged that Mr. Johnson was injured while 

fueling his tractor on December 21, 2018. (Petition of Jerrad Johnson to be Appointed Guardian 

ad Litem for William Lee Johnson (Pet. of Jerrad Johnson”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 3; Compl. ¶¶ 21-23, 

ECF No. 1.) The tractor had a “compressed natural gas fueling system affixed to the rear and 

passenger-side of the passenger cabin (“CNG System”).” (Compl. ¶ 14.) Mr. Johnson was 

standing within a few feet of the CNG system cylinders when one ruptured while he was fueling 

the vehicle. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23.) The catastrophic release of pressure caused a shock wave to 

eminate outward and Mr. Johnson suffered a traumatic brain injury, and multiple fractures. (Pet. 

of Jerrad Johson ¶ 5; Compl. ¶ 23.) The shock wave was so powerful that portions of the tractor 

and CNG system and cylinder flew hundreds of feet in every direction. (Compl. ¶ 24.) The 

tractor was destroyed and the CNG fueling facility sustained major structural damage. (Compl. ¶ 

24.) Mr. Johnson is still in acute care and the brain injury has left him incompetent to represent 

his interests in this case. (Pet. of Jerrad Johson ¶ 5.) 

Upon review, of the documents filed, the Court found that evidence was present that Mr. 

Johnson had been involved in a serious accident and suffered a brain injury, but that there was no 

evidence as to the extent of the brain injury and how it currently affected Mr. Johnson or its 

expected duration. (ECF No. 6.) Therefore, the Court required supplemental briefing, including 

medical evidence demonstrating that Mr. Johnson is not competent to represent his own interests 

in this action. (Id.)

On Febraury 12, 2019, a supplemental declaration of Jerrard Johnson, a letter by Mr. 

Johnson’s treating physician, and medical test results were filed under seal. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) 

Based upon review of this evidence, the Court does find that at the current time, Mr. Johnson 

does not have the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings and is 

unable to assist counsel in the preparation of this action and therefore cannot pursue this action 

without a guardian ad litem. However, the Court notes that the evidence presented does not 

address Mr. Johnson’s long term prognosis and indicates that at this time the long term prognosis 

is uncertain. Accordingly, the Court will require Plaintiff to addess whether the continued 

appointment is appropriate during the pendency of these proceedings. The Court will require 

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 12 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff to address Mr. Johnson’s prognosis in the joint scheduling report that is to be filed prior 

to the initial scheduling conference. (ECF No. 5 at 3-6.) Should Mr. Johnson improve to the 

extent that he is no longer incompetent, Plaintiffs shall inform the Court at the soonest 

opportunity. 

Pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a representative of an 

incompetent person may sue or defend on the incompetent person’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 

This requires the Court to take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests of 

the individual during the litigation. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated 

in Klickitat Cty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986). The appointment of the 

guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. Id. “A guardian ad litem is authorized to act on 

behalf of his ward and may make all appropriate decisions in the course of specific litigation.” Id. 

A guardian ad litem need not possess any special qualifications, but he must “be truly dedicated 

to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. 

Yeager, 143 F.Supp.3d 1042, 9 (E.D. Cal. 2015). This means that the guardian ad litem cannot 

face an impermissible conflict of interest with the ward and courts consider the candidate’s 

“experience, objectivity, and expertise” or previous relationship with the ward. Id. (citations 

omitted). 

The Court has considered the petition, including the supplemental declaration, of Jerrad 

Johnson for appointment as Guardian Ad Litem for William Lee Johnson, who is Plaintiff in this

action. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Jerrad Johnson is appointed as 

Guardian Ad Litem for William Lee Johnson. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall 

address the competency of William Lee Johnson in the joint scheduling report. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2019 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 12 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 3