Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02729/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02729-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

18cv2729-W-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN JONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2729-W-LL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, DAVID 

JENNINGS, AND DENNIS 

LEGGETT’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO DISQUALIFY 

AND REMOVE GAVIN JONES AS 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR 

MINOR PLAINTIFFS E.J. AND W.J.

[ECF No. 44]

Currently before the Court is an ex parte application filed by Defendants County of 

San Diego, David Jennings, and Dennis Leggett requesting that the Court disqualify and 

remove Gavin Jones as guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for the two minor children Plaintiffs. 

ECF No. 44. No opposition has been filed. See Docket. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Jones, E.J. and W.J. filed their original complaint in 

state court. ECF No. 1-2 at 3–26. 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02729-W-LL Document 46 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18cv2729-W-LL

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

On May 1, 2018, the state court granted Jones’ application for appointment of GAL 

in the lawsuit on behalf of his children Minor Plaintiffs E.J. and W.J. ECF No. 44-1, 

Declaration of Jeffrey Miyamoto (“Miyamoto Decl.”), ¶ 17. 

On November 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

ECF No. 1-4 at 5–17. On December 4, 2018, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal of the 

FAC to the instant District Court. ECF No. 1.

On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel told defense counsel that Jones had agreed 

to settle the entire case, which included a dismissal of all claims (including the claims of 

Minor Plaintiffs), on the terms previously discussed on February 18, 2020. Miyamoto 

Decl. ¶ 6. Nominal Defendant Christina Finrow (formerly Christina Jones) also agreed to 

the terms of the settlement. Id. ¶ 4, 6.

On February 28, 2020, following an initial draft and comments, defense counsel sent 

a revised draft Settlement Agreement and Release to Plaintiff’s counsel and Ms. Finrow. 

Id. ¶ 7–8. Ms. Finrow approved the revised agreement. Id. ¶ 8. On March 6, 2020, defense 

counsel learned from Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Park, that Mr. Jones had not been responding 

to Mr. Park’s calls and emails. Id. ¶ 9. 

On March 18, 2020, the Court issued an order setting a follow-up telephonic 

settlement conference for counsel and parties or client representatives on March 26, 2020. 

ECF No. 33. 

On March 19, 2020, defense counsel sent a Settlement Agreement and Release that 

was signed by Defendants and Ms. Finrow and contained Mr. Park’s previous revisions to 

Mr. Park for Mr. Jones’ signature. Miyamoto Decl. ¶ 12.

On March 26, 2020, Mr. Jones did not attend the follow-up telephonic settlement 

conference and Mr. Park stated that Mr. Jones had been unresponsive to Mr. Park’s efforts 

to reach him. Id. ¶ 13; ECF No. 36 at 1. The Court set a hearing on April 2, 2020 to show 

cause why sanctions should not be imposed against Mr. Jones for his failure to appear and 

ordered Mr. Jones to file a declaration in advance of the hearing. ECF No. 36. 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02729-W-LL Document 46 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18cv2729-W-LL

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

On April 2, 2020, Mr. Jones did not appear at the show cause hearing and he did not 

file the required declaration. ECF No. 38. The Court set a follow-up telephonic settlement 

conference for April 16, 2020 and ordered counsel, Mr. Jones, and Ms. Finrow to attend. 

ECF No. 40. On April 16, 2020, Mr. Jones failed to appear, and Mr. Park advised the Court 

that Mr. Jones still has not responded to Mr. Park’s efforts to reach him. ECF No. 43. 

On April 17, 2020, Defendants filed the instant ex parte application to disqualify and 

remove Mr. Jones as GAL for Minor Plaintiffs. 

II. DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS

Defendants argue first that Mr. Jones should be disqualified and removed as GAL 

because he is unfit to serve as GAL. ECF No. 44 at 6–8. Defendants claim that Mr. Jones 

has “completely abandoned his duties and responsibilities as GAL” by failing to follow 

three Court orders to appear telephonically and file a declaration, even after the Court 

warned him that a failure to comply may subject him to additional sanctions, including a 

recommendation of terminating sanctions. Id. at 6–7; see also ECF Nos. 33, 36, 40. 

Defendants further claim that Mr. Jones failure to communicate with his attorney, discuss 

the settlement agreement, and participate in this action has prejudiced Minor Plaintiffs. 

ECF No. 44 at 7. Additionally, Defendants contend that Mr. Jones has demonstrated poor 

judgment as to the safety and supervision of the Minor Plaintiffs during the time that this 

case has been pending based on deposition testimony. Id.

Next, Defendants argue that Mr. Jones should be disqualified and removed as GAL 

because he has a conflict of interest. Id. at 8–10. Defendants contend that there is an actual 

conflict of interest between Mr. Jones and Minor Plaintiffs because Mr. Jones is a key 

witness in the underlying Child Welfare Services investigation that led to this action. They 

claim that there is a potential financial conflict of interest between Mr. Jones and Minor 

Plaintiffs because they are all co-claimants in this action and Mr. Jones’ interest might 

supersede those of the minors. Id. at 10. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02729-W-LL Document 46 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18cv2729-W-LL

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

III. LEGAL STANDARD

“The role of the guardian ad litem is to protect the incompetent person's rights in the 

action, to control the litigation, to compromise or settle, to direct the procedural steps, and 

make stipulations.” Elliott v. Versa CIC, L.P., 328 F.R.D. 554, 556 (S.D. Cal. 2018)

(quoting Golin v. Allenby, 190 Cal. App. 4th 616, 644 (2010)). The Court may, in its 

discretion, “remove a guardian ad litem if she acts contrary to the best interests of the minor 

or incompetent plaintiff, has a conflict of interest with the minor or incompetent plaintiff, 

or demonstrates an inability or refusal to act.” Id.

IV. DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Mr. Jones has not acted in the best interests of the Minor 

Plaintiffs and has demonstrated a refusal to act. Mr. Jones, as GAL, is required, inter alia, 

to protect the Minor Plaintiffs’ rights in the action, to control the litigation, and to 

compromise or settle. Id. However, with a negotiated settlement agreement awaiting his 

approval, Mr. Jones suddenly stopped participating in the case and stopped communicating 

with his attorney. This demonstrates his refusal to act. Furthermore, Mr. Jones’ failure to 

review the settlement agreement and failure to comply with Court orders despite several 

opportunities to reassert his participation puts the entire action in jeopardy of terminating 

sanctions. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended

(May 22, 1992) (finding district courts may dismiss a case for failure to comply with a 

court order). Mr. Jones’ inaction and endangerment of the case is contrary to the best 

interests of the Minor Plaintiffs because they are currently positioned to reach a settlement, 

but for Mr. Jones’ abandonment of his duties as GAL. The Court thus finds it appropriate 

to remove Mr. Jones as GAL of the Minor Plaintiffs for failing to act in their best interests

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02729-W-LL Document 46 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18cv2729-W-LL

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

and for demonstrating an inability or refusal to act. See Elliott v. Versa CIC, L.P., 328 

F.R.D. at 556.1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to disqualify and remove Gavin Jones as 

guardian ad litem of Minor Plaintiffs E.J. and W.J. and ORDERS the following:

Plaintiffs’ attorney shall submit a petition for appointment of a new guardian ad 

litem that presents up to three suitable guardian candidates, their agreements to serve, and

explanation with citation to legal authority of why they are suitable on or before

May 18, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2020

 

1 Because the Court finds Mr. Jones has failed to act in the best interests of the Minor 

Plaintiffs and has demonstrated an inability or refusal to act, the Court does not reach the 

issue of whether Mr. Jones has a conflict of interest with Minor Plaintiffs. 

Case 3:18-cv-02729-W-LL Document 46 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5