Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02078/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02078-2/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 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

MOTION TO APPOINT PAUL 

VIRIYAPUNT AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM 

(Doc. No. 20) 

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Norma Viryapunt’s motion to appoint Paul

Viryapunt’s as guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 20.) No opposition to the pending motion has been 

filed. The pending motion was taken under submission to be decided on the papers pursuant to 

Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. No. 24) For the reasons explained below, the court will deny Plaintiff’s 

motion, without prejudice. 

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 the minor or

incompetent person’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

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

Case 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC Document 25 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 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

2

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 any 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 

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

Here, 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 and submits a copy of an executed power of attorney for 

Plaintiff and a declaration from Dr. Richelle Parazo Cruz in support of those representations. 

(Doc. Nos. 20-1 at ¶¶ 4–5; 20-2; 20-3.) Paul Viriyapunt also represents 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. (Doc. No. 20-1 at 20-1 at ¶¶ 7–8.) Based on these 

Case 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC Document 25 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 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

3

representations, the court finds Paul Viriyapunt to be an appropriate guardian ad litem for 

Plaintiff, and that the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) have been satisfied. However, Plaintiff’s 

counsel has not provided the disclosure of attorney’s interest as required by Local Rule 202(c). 

For this reason, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment as guardian ad litem

without prejudice to her re-filing a revised motion or notice that complies with the requirements 

of Local Rule 202(c).

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint Paul Viriyapunt as guardian ad litem (Doc. No. 20) is

denied, without prejudice, due to noncompliance with the requirements of Local

Rule 202(c); and

2. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion or revised notice that complies with Local

Rule 202(c) within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2024 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC Document 25 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3