requiring “‘a written declaration that 8 | the proposed guardian ad litem is independent and would act in the best interests of the minors”
How later courts described this case
- requiring “‘a written declaration that 8 | the proposed guardian ad litem is independent and would act in the best interests of the minors”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 Renee Booth, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01612-KJM-CKD
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER
13 Vv.
14 United States of America,
1S Defendants.
16
17 This is a medical malpractice case related to the care of K.C., a minor. See generally
18 | Compl., ECF No. 1. The parties have reached a proposed settlement agreement. See Mot.
19 | Appoint Guardian at 2, ECF No. 31. The plaintiffs now ask the court to appoint Chip Evans as
20 | guardian ad litem of K.C. See generally id. According to their motion, Evans “is an attorney and
21 | has considerable experience in serving as guardian for these types of cases. He is also board
22 | certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.” /d. at 3. The United States does not
23 | oppose this motion. See id.
24 “A minor... who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue... by a
25 | guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate
26 | order—to protect a minor . . . who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). A
27 | guardian ad litem must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf
28 | [s]he seeks to litigate.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990); Coal. of Clergy,
1 | Lawyers, & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir. 2002). The court considers
2 | whether the proposed guardian ad litem has an “impermissible conflict of interest” with the minor
3 | plaintiff and the proposed guardian’s “experience, objectivity, and expertise, .. . or previous
4 | relationship” with the minor plaintiff.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042,
5 | 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To make this assessment,
6 | courts commonly require a declaration by the proposed guardian. See, e.g., Watson v. Cty. of
7 | Santa Clara, 468 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (requiring “‘a written declaration that
8 | the proposed guardian ad litem is independent and would act in the best interests of the minors”).
9 The plaintiffs have not filed a declaration by the proposed guardian, and the court cannot
10 | independently confirm that he is qualified, experienced, and faces no conflicts of interest. The
11 | motion to appoint Evans as a guardian ad litem (ECF No. 31) is thus denied without prejudice
12 | to renewal with evidence to support his appointment.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 DATED: August 30, 2022. | / □
15
CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
45