Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02054/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02054-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAL BHATIA, Individually and as a

Guardian ad Litem for JANE DOE; JANE

DOE, a Minor, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEPHEN CORRIGAN; DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-2054 CW

ORDER RE APPOINTMENT

OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Plaintiff Lal Bhatia purports to be the guardian ad litem for

his minor daughter, Plaintiff Jane Doe. However, he has not filed

a petition and proposed order to be appointed guardian ad litem. 

See William W Schwarzer et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before

Trial, § 7:37 (2003). The Court has a duty to ensure that a

minor's interest are protected. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)

(providing that the court "shall make such other order as it deems

proper for the protection of the infant"); In re Chicago, Rock

Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 788 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986) (“If

there was some reason to think that [the infant's] mother would not

Case 4:07-cv-02054-CW Document 14 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 4
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 2

represent [the infant's] interests adequately, the district court

would, we may assume, be required (and certainly would be

empowered) to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent [the

infant].”).

Generally, when a minor is represented by a parent who is a

party to the lawsuit, and who has the same interests as the child,

there is no inherent conflict of interest. See, e.g., Gonzalez v.

Reno, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2000), aff'd 212 F.3d

1338 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “when a parent brings an

action on behalf of a child, and it is evident that the interests

of each are the same, no need exists for someone other than the

parent to represent the child's interests under Rule 17(c).”). 

When there is no conflict of interest, the guardian ad litem

appointment is usually made on an ex parte application and involves

minimal exercise of discretion by the court. Kulya v. City and

County of San Francisco, 2007 WL 760776, * 1 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

However, "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 v. Superior Court, 147

Cal. App. 4th 36, 50 (2007). As explained in Williams:

Once the parent has made the decision that his or her child

should seek monetary recovery by filing a lawsuit, the

policies supporting a parent's right to decide whether a child

should become involved in civil litigation are no longer

paramount. Instead, the focus becomes the protection of the

child's legal interests in the context of the civil action. 

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 52-53.

Case 4:07-cv-02054-CW Document 14 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that there is,

at a minimum, a potential conflict of interest between Jane Doe and

her father, Plaintiff Bhatia, due to the criminal prosecution. 

Thus, despite being her father, Plaintiff Bhatia, is not a suitable

choice for guardian ad litem in this litigation. Nor is Jane Doe's

mother an appropriate guardian because there too is a potential

conflict of interest, due to her marriage to Plaintiff Lal Bhatia. 

Therefore, Plaintiff Bhatia is ordered to submit list of three

suitable guardians, along with their contact information, their

agreement to serve and a brief explanation of why they would be

suitable, within two weeks of the date of this order. Defendant

may also submit a list of three suitable guardians within two weeks

of the date of this order. The parties should do appropriate

preliminary due diligence to avoid possible conflicts of interest. 

The Court will then consider the parties' suggested candidates, but

is not limited to a selection among them. 

The reasonable expenses of the appointed guardian ad litem

shall be determined by the Court and paid as the Court may order,

either out of any damages award or by Jane Doe, through her father. 

See Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 373.5. The appointed guardian ad litem

shall review the factual allegations of the complaint, consult with

Jane Doe and determine what, if any, legal claims are in Jane Doe's

best interest to pursue. Should the appointed guardian find it is

in Jane Doe's interest to pursue the claims, the guardian must

determine whether or not to retain separate counsel or to retain

Case 4:07-cv-02054-CW Document 14 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Stanley Hilton as counsel for the minor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/16/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02054-CW Document 14 Filed 05/16/07 Page 4 of 4