Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00105-0/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 REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING ON PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND DIRECTING 

MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO BE FILED UNDER 

SEAL

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

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

appointment as guardian ad litem for William Lee Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “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-CV04768-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, 

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 4
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

2018 WL 1453243 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018). Appointment of a guardian ad litem implicates due 

process concerns because an incompetency finding and the subsequent appointment of a guardian 

ad litem deprives a litigant of the right to control the litigation and subjects him to possible 

stigmatization. Gibson v. Hagerty Ins. Agency, No. 1:16-CV-00677-DAD-BAM, 2017 WL 

1022792, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2017) (citing Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 

F.3d 196, 203 (2d Cir. 2003) and Thomas v. Humfield, 916 F.2d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1990)). “In 

most cases, a guardian will not be appointed for an adult unless the person gives consent or upon 

notice and a hearing.” Jurgens v. Dubendorf, No. 2:14-CV-2780-KJM-DAD, 2015 WL 6163464, 

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015); Gibson, 2017 WL 1022792, at *2.

Here, substantial evidence of incompetence has been submitted to require the court to 

make a competency determination. Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 petition states that Mr. Johnson suffered a traumatic 

brain injury and is still in acute care. (Pet. of Jerrad Johnson ¶ 5.) Also, it is alleged that the 

brain injury has left him incompetent to represent his interests in this case. (Pet. of Jerrad 

Johnson ¶ 5.) 

However, while the Court notes the severity of the incident in which Mr. Johnson was 

injured and that he suffered a traumatic brain injury, there has been no evidence submitted as to 

the extent of Mr. Johnson’s brain injury, how it currently affects Mr. Johnson, or its expected 

duration. Further, while it is alleged that Mr. Johnson is in acute care on the date that the petition 

is filed, there is no indication of how long he will remain there. While there is evidence that Mr. 

Johnson may be incompetent to represent his interests, the evidence is insufficient for the Court to 

find that Mr. Johnson is incompetent. 

The Ninth Circuit has indicated that in considering a litigant’s competency the court may 

consider sworn declarations from the allegedly incompetent litigant, sworn declarations or letters 

from treating medical providers, and medical records. See Allen, 408 F.3d at 1151-52; Gibson, 

No. 2017 WL 1022792, at *2. Therefore, the Court shall require the submission of medical 

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 2 of 4
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

evidence addressing the diagnosis, plan, and prognosis for Mr. Johnson. The Court is unable to 

make a determination as to Mr. Johnson’s competency without the submission of such evidence. 

The Court also notes that Mr. Johnson has a legitimate privacy interest in his medical records and 

finds good cause to order such documents to be filed under seal.

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). 

Jerrad Johnson (“Petitioner”), is Plaintiff’s son and seeks to be appointed as guardian ad 

litem. While the petition for appointment states that Petitioner is competent and willing to act as 

guardian ad litem for his father, it does not address any potential conflicts of interest or that he 

understands he is to act in the best interest of his father if appointed guardian ad litem. The Court 

shall require a declaration from Petitioner addressing these issues. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order, Petitioner shall submit 

supplemental briefing for the petition for appointment of guardian ad litem as 

discussed herein;

2. To protect Mr. Johnson’s confidential medical information, Plaintiff shall file the 

required medical evidence, declarations, or letters addressing medical issues under 

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 3 of 4
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

seal. Plaintiff is directed to Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i) for the procedure to submit 

documents to be sealed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2019 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 4 of 4