Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05225/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Liberty Union High School District
Defendant
J. M.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER — No. 16-cv-05225-LB

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

J. M.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05225-LB 

ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S 

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Re: ECF No. 3

INTRODUCTION

This case arises from a high school disciplinary action involving a student with ADHD and the 

defendant-district’s subsequent administrative review.1J.M., a minor child with ADHD and the 

plaintiff here, was involved in a verbal altercation and a subsequent threatening confrontation with 

another student.2“J.M. was immediately suspended and [Liberty Union High School District] 

moved to expel him.”3Through the expulsion process, the District concluded that “J.M.’s conduct 

 

1

See generally Compl. — ECF No. 1. Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File 

(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2

Id. ¶15.

3

Id.

Case 3:16-cv-05225-LB Document 10 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 4
ORDER — No. 16-cv-05225-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

was not caused by nor did it have a direct and substantial relationship to J.M.’s [AHDH].”4J.M. 

sued to challenge this determination, which was upheld in a District administrative proceeding.5

Now before the court is J.M.’s petition to appoint a guardian ad litem.

6

J.M. has no general 

guardian and seeks to appoint D.M. (his mother).7 M.M. (his father) agrees that D.M. should be 

appointed as guardian ad litem.8

GOVERNING LAW

“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).9 An individual’s capacity to sue is determined by the law of 

the individual’s domicile. Id. 17(b). Under California law, an individual under the age of eighteen 

is a minor. Cal. Fam. Code § 6500. A minor may bring suit as long as a guardian conducts the 

proceedings and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the minor’s interests in the 

litigation. Id. § 6601; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372(a); Williams v. Super. Ct., 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 

47 (2007). 

The court “has broad discretion in ruling on a guardian ad litem application.” Williams v. 

Super. Ct., 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47 (2007). In the case of parent representatives, “‘[w]hen there is 

a potential conflict between a perceived parental responsibility and an obligation to assist the court 

 

4

Id. ¶ 16.

5

Id. ¶¶ 16, 22.

6

Petition for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem — ECF No. 3.

7

Id. at 1.

8

Id.

9

“A ‘next friend’ who initiates suit in federal court bears the burden of proving his suitability 

according to three general factors that are independent of the law of the forum state. These factors are: 

1) An adequate explanation of why the minor may not bring suit himself; 2) a true dedication to the 

best interest of the minor; and 3) some significant relationship with the minor.” Anthem Life Ins. Co. v. 

Olguin, No. 1:06-cv-01165, 2007 WL 1390672, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2007) (citing T.W. v. Brophy, 

954 F. Supp. 1306, 1309 (E.D. Wis.1996), aff’d, 124 F.3d 893, 896–97 (7th Cir. 1997)). “It appears to 

be the common practice to appoint a parent to act as next friend for a child.” Anthem Life Ins. Co., 

2007 WL 1390672, at *2 (citing Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1352 (11th Cir. 2000)).

Case 3:16-cv-05225-LB Document 10 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 4
ORDER — No. 16-cv-05225-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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.” Id.

at 49 (quoting M.S. v. Wermers, 557 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1977)) Thus, “if the parent has an 

actual or potential conflict of interest with his [or her] child, the parent has no right to control or 

influence the child’s litigation.” Id. at 50. If, on the other hand, “a parent brings an action on 

behalf of a child, and it is evident that the interests of each are the same, no need exists for 

someone other than the parent to represent the child’s interests under Rule 17(c).” Gonzalez v. 

Reno, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2000), aff’d 212 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2000); see also

Bhatia v. Corrigan, No. C 07-2054 CW, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2007) 

(citing Gonzalez, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1185). 

When there is no conflict of interest, “the appointment is usually made on application only and 

involves little exercise of discretion.” Williams, 147 Cal. App. 4th at 47 (quoting In re Marriage 

Caballero, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1139, 1149 (1994)) (internal quotations omitted). 

ANALYSIS

J.M. was born in 2000 and is thus fifteen or sixteen years old.10 Because J.M. is under the age 

of eighteen, he is a minor under California law. Cal. Fam. Code § 6500. As a minor, J.M.’s ability 

to sue is contingent on the appointment of a guardian ad litem. A parent may serve as guardian so 

long as the parent does not have an adverse interest. 

J.M. seeks to appoint his mother, D.M., as guardian ad litem.11 D.M. brought this action solely 

on behalf of her minor child and the court finds no conflict with J.M.’s claims. Her appointment as 

J.M.’s guardian ad litem is therefore 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 

Gonzalez, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1185; Robidoux v. Wacker Family Trust, No. CIVS-06-2334 LKK-

 

10 Compl. ¶ 12; Petition at 1.

11 Petition at 1.

Case 3:16-cv-05225-LB Document 10 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 4
ORDER — No. 16-cv-05225-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DAD, 2009 WL 1531785, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2009), rev’d on other grounds by No. 09-

16674, 2011 WL 1136241 (appointing plaintiff mother as guardian ad litem for plaintiff children 

in housing discrimination case).

CONCLUSION

The court grants J.M.’s petition and appoints D.M. as J.M’s guardian ad litem.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-05225-LB Document 10 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 4