Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035-64/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ROE I, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 THOMAS F. WHITE,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-04035 CRB

ORDER REPLACING GUARDIAN AD

LITEM

The Court finds that the court-appointed guardian ad litem has a conflict of interest

that disqualifies him from representing the minor plaintiffs’ interests with respect to the

request of plaintiffs’ counsel David Replogle for a 40 percent contingency fee plus costs. 

The guardian ad litem, Mauricio Rodriguez Borrego, attests that Replogle agreed to

pay him 20 percent of all legal fees earned for Replogle’s representation of all 20 plaintiffs,

including the plaintiffs whose interests Rodriguez Borrego represents. Declaration of

Mauricio Rodriguez Borrego, filed January 30, 2008, ¶ 13. That agreement is memorialized

in a letter from Replogle to Rodriguez Borrego dated June 13, 2005 which reads:

This is to acknowledge our agreement concerning attorneys’ fees to be earned in the

above-referenced action pending before the federal court in San Francisco. In

consideration of your continuing efforts on behalf of the plaintiffs in Mexico, we have

agreed that you will receive 20% of the attorneys’ fees earned in the case.

Special Master Report No. 3 at 8.

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 804 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 3
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

In their Joint Motion to Approve and Adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

filed January 30, 2008, Replogle and Rodriguez Borrego propose the following: 

The agreement by Replogle to pay Rodriguez Borrego 20% of the gross

attorneys’ fees for his services in Mexico on behalf of the Plaintiffs is valid and

enforceable. The value of Rodriguez Borrego’s services to the minor Plaintiffs

(while they were minors) was equal to at least 20% of the gross attorney’s fees.

Rodriguez Borrego is entitled to payment of 20% of the gross attorneys’ fees,

regardless of whether such payment is denoted as attorneys’ fees or Guardian

ad Litem compensation. 

Proposed Order at ¶ 5, 6. Thus, it is undisputed that Replogle has agreed to pay Rodriguez

Borrego 20 percent of all fees earned in this case, including fees earned for representing the

Jose Roe minor plaintiffs.

Since Rodriguez Borrego has a percentage interest in the amount of fees recovered by

plaintiffs’ counsel, he has a conflict with all the plaintiffs, including those for whom he is the

guardian ad litem. The plaintiffs’ interest is in paying as little as possible in attorney’s fees

whereas Rodriguez Borrego has a financial interest in Replogle receiving as much in

attorney’s fees as possible; the more Replogle is paid the more Rodriguez-Borrego is paid. 

Accordingly, Rodriguez Borrego can no longer serve as the guardian ad litem. See Williams

v. Superior Court, 147 Cal.App.4th 36, 48 (2007) (noting that a father has a conflict of

interest with his children with respect to his children’s lawsuit arising out of their mother’s

wrongful death when the father also has a wrongful death claim; therefore the father cannot

serve as his childrens’ guardian ad litem). As of the date of this Order, Rodriguez Borrego is

removed as the guardian ad litem for plaintiffs Victor Manuel Ortega Rodriguez, Adrian

Jiminez Rebollo, Samuel Chavez Morales, and Sheridiane Emanuel Lopez Vasquez (also

known as Cheriban Emanuel Lopez Vasquez). These plaintiffs have been identified

fictitiously in this litigation as Jose Roe I, Jose Roe II, Jose Roe III, and Jose Roe IV.

While these plaintiffs have now reached the age of majority due to the protracted

nature of this litigation, the Court finds that it must appoint a new guardian ad litem to

adequately protect these plaintiffs’ interests. These plaintiffs are poor, uneducated, live in

Mexico and do not speak English. Moreover, they were minors at the time their guardian

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 804 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\CRBALL\2003\4035\guardian\orderrereplacement.wpd 3

consented to Replogle’s legal representation. As a practical matter, they are incapable of

representing their interests with respect to Replogle’s significant fee request.

Accordingly, after careful consideration, the Court appoints attorney James Wagstaffe as

guardian ad litem for the Jose Roe plaintiffs. Mr. Wagstaffe and his firm are experienced

federal practitioners, who have represented guardians ad litem in prior cases and served by

appointment of the California Superior Court to represent minors.

 The Court authorizes Mr. Wagstaffe and his law firm, Kerr & Wagstaffe, to perform

legal services on behalf of the Jose Roe plaintiffs. See 35A Cal. Jur. 3d Guardianship and

Conservatorship § 329 (2008) (“A guardian ad litem who is also an attorney capable of

attending to the litigation ordinarily should not engage another attorney in the proceeding”). 

Mr. Wagstaffe and his firm shall be paid at an hourly rate, not to exceed $400 an hour for

partner time, and all bills shall be approved by the Court before being paid. Such payments

will not be made unless and until the Ninth Circuit stay is vacated. Mr. Wagstaffe’s cv is

attached to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Feb. 14, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 804 Filed 02/14/08 Page 3 of 3