Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01835/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01835-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

1

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

On December 4, 2015, Brenda Markham initiated this action on behalf of minor Plaintiff K.M.

and requested the Court appoint her as the guardian ad litem for the child. (Doc. 1-2) Because the 

Court finds Ms. Markham to be an appropriate guardian ad litem, the petition is GRANTED.

I. Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor . . . who does not have a duly 

appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). 

In addition, a court “must appoint a guardian ad litem - or issue another appropriate order - to protect a 

minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Id. The capacity of an individual to 

sue is determined “by the law of the individual’s domicile.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). 

Here, K.M. resides in California (Doc. 1 at 2) and the law of the state governs. Under 

California law, an individual under the age of eighteen is a minor, and a minor may bring suit only if

K.M, (a minor, by and through her

parent and guardian ad litem, Brenda

Markham)

 Plaintiff,

v.

TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01835 LJO JLT 

ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO APPOINT 

BRENDA MARKHAM AS GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM FOR K.M

(Doc. 1-2)

Case 1:15-cv-01835-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

a guardian conducts the proceedings. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6502, 6601. The Court may appoint a

guardian ad litem to represent the child’s interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a). 

II. Discussion and Analysis

Here, Plaintiff K.M. is an eight-year-old (Doc. 1-2 at 1) and, as a result, is a minor under 

California law. See Cal. Fam. Code § 6502. As a child, her ability to bring pursue this action is 

contingent upon the appointment of a guardian ad litem. In determining whether to appoint a particular 

guardian ad litem, the court must consider whether the child 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 36, 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 2007) 

(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.” Id. at 50.

Upon review of the complaint, it does not appear there are adverse interests between the child 

and her proposed guardian ad litem. Indeed, this action brings challenges under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Improvement Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act 

and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to claims that the child is being denied full educational 

opportunities. Thus, the proposed guardian has no competing claims with the child and appointment of 

Ms. Markham as the guardian ad litem for the child is appropriate. See Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 

1264 (11th Cir. 2001) (“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 also 

Anthem Life Ins. Co. v. Olguin, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37669, at *7 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2007) 

(observing that “[a] parent is generally appointed guardian ad litem”).

III. Conclusion and Order

The decision whether to appoint a guardian ad litem is “normally left to the sound discretion of 

the trial court.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, etc., 795 F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, it 

does not appear either proposed guardian has conflicting interests, and as such they may be appointed 

Case 1:15-cv-01835-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

to represent the interests of the children. Therefore, the Court is acting within its discretion to grant 

the application.

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The motion for appointment of Brenda Markham as guardian ad litem for K.M. (Doc. 

1-2) is GRANTED; 

2. Brenda Markham is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff K.M., and is 

authorized to prosecute this action on her behalf.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01835-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3