Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00093/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00093-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rufina Hilario Garcia
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Plaintiffs are the children of Santo Hiario Garcia and Marcelina Garcia Profecto, and assert the 

Government is liable for the wrongful deaths of their parents following a high-speed vehicle chase by 

the United States Department of Homeland Security and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Agency. (See generally Doc. 1) Rufina Hilario Garcia seeks appointment as the guardian ad litem for 

her minor siblings, Ce.H.G., M.H.G., P.H.G., Ca.H.G., and O.H.G. (Doc. 28) but Ms. Garcia has not 

requested appointment. For the reasons set forth below, the request 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 

RUFINA HILARIO GARCIA, individually 

and on behalf of Ce. H.G., M.H.G., P.H.G. , 

Ca.H.G., and O.H.G., minors, being the heirs 

of and successors-in-interest to SANTO 

HILARIO GARCIA and MARCELINA 

GARCIA PROFECTO,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-0093-NONE- JLT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

APPOINT RUFINA HILARIO GARCIA AS THE 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR MINOR 

PLAINTIFFS Ce. H.G., M.H.G., P.H.G., Ca.H.G., 

and O.H.G.

(Doc. 18)

Case 1:20-cv-00093-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 02/20/20 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

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, Plaintiffs

reside in Kern County, California (See 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 as long as a guardian conducts the proceedings. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6502, 6601. A guardian ad 

litem may be appointed to represent the minor’s interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a). To evaluate 

whether to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the Court must consider whether the minors and the

proposed 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 

...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). If a guardian “has an actual or potential 

conflict of interest with [the] child,” the individual “has no right to control or influence the child's 

litigation.” Id. at 50.

II. Discussion and Analysis

Plaintiffs, including Ms. Garcia, assert the Government is liable for the wrongful deaths of their 

parents following a high-speed vehicle chase. Because plaintiffs Ce. H.G., M.H.G., P.H.G., Ca.H.G., 

and O.H.G. are minors under California law, they are unable to prosecute the claims presented in the 

complaint without the appointment of a guardian ad litem. See Cal. Fam. Code § 6502. 

Upon review of the Complaint, it does not appear there are adverse interests, because the claims 

of Ms. Garcia are the same as those of her minor siblings. Further, Plaintiffs report that the Superior 

Court of California, County of Kern, appointed Ms. Garcia as the guardian for her siblings following 

the death of their parents, in Case No. BPB-18-002494. (Doc. 18 at 2, ¶ 2) Accordingly, the Court 

finds appointment of Ms. Garcia as guardian ad litem for her siblings is appropriate. See Burke v. 

Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Generally, when a minor is represented by a guardian

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 a parent or guardian “is generally appointed guardian ad litem”).

Case 1:20-cv-00093-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 02/20/20 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

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 Ms. Garcia has conflicting interests with those of Ce.H.G., M.H.G., P.H.G., Ca.H.G., 

and O.H.G, and as such she may be appointed to represent their interests. Therefore, the Court is acting 

within its discretion to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of Ms. Garcia as the guardian ad litem.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 

1. The motion for appointment of Rufina Hilario Garcia as guardian ad litem for Ce.H.G., 

M.H.G., P.H.G., Ca.H.G., and O.H.G (Doc. 18) is GRANTED; and 

2. Rufina Hilario Garcia is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for plaintiffs Ce.H.G., 

M.H.G., P.H.G., Ca.H.G., and O.H.G, and is authorized to prosecute this action on their

behalf.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00093-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3