Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02078/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02078-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Central State Credit Union
Defendant
Norma Viriyapunt
Plaintiff
Paul Viriyapunt
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMA VIRIYAPUNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTRAL STATE CREDIT UNION,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

VIRIYAPUNT’S RENEWED MOTION TO 

APPOINT PAUL VIRIYAPUNT AS 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

(Doc. No. 26)

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff Norma Viriyapunt filed a motion to appoint Paul 

Viriyapunt as her guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 20.) The court denied the motion without 

prejudice because the motion did not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). (Doc. 

No. 25.) On January 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to appoint Paul Viriyapunt as 

guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 26.)1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the pending motion is taken 

under submission to be decided on the papers. Accordingly, the court vacates the hearing on the 

pending motion scheduled for February 21, 2025. For the reasons explained below, the court will 

1 Local Rule 202(a) provides “[u]pon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in 

defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent person, the attorney representing 

the minor or incompetent person” shall move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The 

court finds a three-month delay in requesting the appointment of a guardian ad litem for an

incompetent person is disfavored. Nonetheless, the court finds good cause exists to excuse 

Plaintiff’s untimely request for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Plaintiff’s counsel is 

reminded of his obligation to adhere to the Local Rules.

Case 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC Document 27 Filed 01/10/25 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

2

grant the renewed motion and appoint Paul Viriyapunt as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. 

Under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor or an 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 a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 17(c)(2). A representative of a minor or incompetent person may sue or defend on behalf of the 

minor or incompetent person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. United States v. 

30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 

(9th Cir. 1986). A court shall take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests 

of the individual during the litigation. Id. The guardian need not possess special qualifications, 

but he must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to 

litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting 

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990)).

In this district, Local Rule 202(a) further provides, in pertinent part:

Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in 

defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor . . . the attorney 

representing the minor or incompetent person shall present . . . a 

motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or

. . . a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is 

necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or 

incompetent person.

L.R. 202(a) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). Local Rule 202 also requires disclosure of the 

attorney’s interest, specifically requiring the following:

When the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, it shall 

be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the 

attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the 

application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of 

action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands 

in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has 

received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and 

the amount.

L.R. 202(c).

The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion 

Case 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC Document 27 Filed 01/10/25 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

3

of the trial court.” 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 804.

The court finds the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) have been satisfied. The proposed 

guardian ad litem Paul Viriyapunt represents that he is the son of Plaintiff, who is suffering from 

dementia. (Doc. No. 20-1 at ¶¶ 4–5.) Paul Viriyapunt represents Plaintiff is unable to manage her 

affairs. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Paul Viriyapunt declares he believes his appointment as guardian ad litem is in 

Plaintiff’s best interest and if he is appointed, he would operate with Plaintiff’s best interest in 

mind. (Id. at ¶¶ 7–8.) 

The motion also meets the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). In a declaration filed in 

support of the pending motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel Scott M. Plescia declares that his law firm

Loker Law, APC, was engaged by Paul Viriyapunt to pursue Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 

Central State Credit Union. (Doc. No. 26-2 at ¶ 5.) Attorney Plescia represents the engagement of 

Loker Law, APC is on a pure contingency basis, and at this point in time, the firm has not been 

compensated in any way. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Attorney Plescia asserts Loker Law, APC did not become 

involved in this case at the instance of Defendant Central State Credit Union and the firm does 

not hold any interest adverse to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s renewed motion will be granted.

Accordingly:

1. The renewed motion for the appointment of Paul Viriyapunt as guardian ad litem

for Plaintiff Norma Viriyapunt (Doc. No. 26) is granted;

2. Paul Viriyapunt is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Norma 

Viriyapunt and is authorized to prosecute the action on her behalf; and 

3. In light of this order, the hearing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion set for February 

21, 2025 is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC Document 27 Filed 01/10/25 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

4

Case 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC Document 27 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 4