Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01083/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01083-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN REED, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MODESTO, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-1083 AWI GSA 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

 FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN

AD LITEM WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 42)

INTRODUCTION

On June 29, 2011, Plaintiffs, B.R., a minor (“minor”), and Brian Reed (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint alleging civil rights violations and related state claims. (Doc. 1).

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2012, alleging similar claims. (Doc. 37). 

Both complaints identify Susan Nava as B.R.’s guardian ad litem. However, no petition or

motion to appoint Susan Nava as the minor’s guardian ad litem was submitted to the Court. 

On April 8, 2013, Steven Yourke, Plaintiffs’ attorney, submitted an application to appoint

Brian Reed as guardian ad litem for B.R. in place of Susan Nava. (Doc. 42). Upon a review of

the pleading, the application is DENIED without prejudice.

1

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 43 Filed 04/24/13 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

DISCUSSION

A plaintiff must have capacity to sue. “Capacity” refers to a party’s personal right to

litigate in federal court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 17(b). Similar to federal law, California law

requires that minors or incompetents cannot sue in their own names, or defend an action brought

against them. Instead, litigation ordinarily must be conducted through a guardian, conservator of

the estate, or guardian ad litem. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 372. “[A]n incompetent person who does

not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The

court must appoint a guardian ad litem - or issue another appropriate order - to protect . . . the

incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 17(c)(2). 

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that since no application to appoint Ms. Nava

was ever filed, there has not been a guardian ad litem appointed in this case. Therefore, the

Court is unable to substitute Mr. Reed in place of Ms. Nava. Furthermore, the Court is concerned

about whether Mr. Reed is qualified to act as a guardian ad litem for several reasons.

First, as previously noted, the purpose of the guardian ad litem is to protect the minor’s

interests in the litigation. Williams v. Superior Court,147 Cal. App. 4 36 (App. 4 Dist. 2007). th

In this case, both the complaint and the amended complaint allege that Mr. Reed is severely and

permanently injured as a result of the events giving rise to this lawsuit. In particular, the

complaints contend that Mr. Reed suffers from seizures, that his short term memory is impaired,

he is disoriented, depressed, anxious, he sometimes enters into a trance, and he requires extensive

nursing care. (Doc. 1 at pg. 4; Doc. 37 at pg. 4). Furthermore, this Court has permitted

extensions of time to complete expert discovery to determine the extent of Mr. Reed’s physical

and cognitive impairments. Specifically, in the most recent stipulation, it was noted by the

parties that Mr. Reed suffers from severe cognitive impairments. (Doc. 39 at pg. 2). Given these

facts, the Court is not convinced that Mr. Reed has the necessary cognitive abilities to adequately

protect the interests of the minor.

Second, Mr. Reed is B.R.’s father. Typically, the next friend or guardian ad litem who

2

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 43 Filed 04/24/13 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

sues on behalf of a minor is that minor’s parent. Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1351-53

(11th Cir. 2000). However, in determining whether to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the

court must consider whether the minor and the guardian have divergent interests. Cal.Code Civ.

P. § 372(b)(1). “When there is a potential conflict between a perceived parental responsibility

and an obligation to assist the court in achieving a just and speedy determination of the action, a

court has the right to select a guardian ad litem who is not a parent if that guardian would best

protect the child's interests.” Williams v. Super. Ct., 147 Cal.App.4th at 49 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). “[I]f 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 v. Super. Ct.,

147 Cal.App.4th at 50.

Here, Mr. Reed is B.R.’s father, as well as a named Plaintiff in this matter. At some point

in this litigation, the parties may have divergent interests. Mr. Reed will be unable to act as

B.R.’s guardian ad litem given this potential conflict of interest. Therefore, without more

information specifically addressing this issue, the Court will not appoint Mr. Reed as the minor’s

guardian ad litem. Accordingly, the application is denied.

Because no guardian ad litem has been appointed in this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall

submit an amended application to appoint guardian ad litem no later than May 31, 2013. If Mr.

Reed is the proposed guardian, Plaintiffs’ counsel is cautioned that information needs to be

attached to the application addressing the concerns of the Court outlined above. Counsel is

further advised the Court will likely hold a hearing to assess Mr. Reed’s condition if he wishes to

pursue this application. 

Finally, the instant application raises concerns about Ms. Nava’s ability to act as a

guardian ad litem. Therefore, if counsel submits an application to appoint Ms. Nava as a

guardian ad litem in the future, any amended application shall provide the Court with specific

information about the concerns raised in the instant application, as well as why these concerns

are no longer an issue.

3

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 43 Filed 04/24/13 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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Brian Reed as B.R.’s guardian ad

litem is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall submit a Motion to Appoint

Guardian ad Litem no later than May 31, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 24, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:11-cv-01083-AWI-GSA Document 43 Filed 04/24/13 Page 4 of 4