The opinion
1 Jonathan K. Levine (SBN 220289) David S. Golub (admitted pro hac vice)
Elizabeth C. Pritzker (SBN 146267) Steven L. Bloch (admitted pro hac vice)
2 Caroline C. Corbitt (SBN 305492) Ian W. Sloss (admitted pro hac vice)
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
3
1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 184 Atlantic Street
4 Emeryville, CA 94608 Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Telephone: (203) 325-4491
5 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com dgolub@sgtlaw.com
6 ecp@pritzkerlevine.com sbloch@sgtlaw.com
ccc@pritzkerlevine.com isloss@sgtlaw.com
7
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and
the Proposed Classes and Subclasses
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
11 SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
C.H., a minor, by and through their guardian ad Case No. 5:19-cv-07016-BLF
13
litem NICHOLE HUBBARD; E.J., N.J., A.J., and
14 L.J., minors, by and through their guardian ad CLASS ACTION
litem CARA JONES; J.A.E. and J.R.E., minors, by
15 and through their guardian ad litem JUSTIN [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING
EFROS; M.W., a minor, by and through their GUARDIAN AD LITEMS
16 guardian ad litem RENEE GILMORE; A.G., a
minor, by and through their guardian ad litem JAY Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
17
GOODWIN; C.D, a minor, by and through their
18 guardian ad litem BOBBI DISHMAN; individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated
19
Plaintiffs,
20 v.
21
GOOGLE LLC; YOUTUBE LLC; CARTOON
22 NETWORK, INC.; CARTOON NETWORK
STUDIOS, INC.; CHUCHU TV STUDIOS;
23 DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC;
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION TELEVISION,
24 LLC; HASBRO, INC.; HASBRO STUDIOS LLC;
MATTEL, INC.; POCKETWATCH, INC.;
25
REMKA, INC.; RTR PRODUCTION LLC; AND
26 RFR ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
27 Defendants.
1 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Application to Appoint Guardian Ad Litems
2 || and all supporting declarations. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to
3 || take proper measures to protect a minor during litigation, including appointing a guardian ad litem
4 || for a minor without a duly appointed representative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). “The decision to appoint
5 guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c) is normally left to the sound discretion of the trial court[.]”
6 || Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). ‘“When there is no conflict of interest, the
7 || guardian ad litem appointment is usually made on ex parte application [.]”’ Student A v. Berkeley
8 || Unified School District, Case No. 17-cv-02510-MEJ, 2017 WL 2171254, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 17,
9 || 2017) (citations omitted). There are no special requirements for the person acting as guardian ad
10 || litem, and the main focus is furthering the best interests of the minor. Kulya y. City and County of
11 || San Francisco, No. C 06-06539 JSW, 2007 WL 760776, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007).
12 The Court finds that appointing guardian ad litems as requested by Plaintiffs is appropriate:
13 || the applicants have a strong interest in their children’s welfare, are willing and able to pursue this
14 || action on behalf of their children, have no conflicts of interest, and are acting in good faith. The
15 || Court makes the following appointments:
16 e NICHOLE HUBBARD on behalf of C.H.;
17 e CARA JONES on behalf of E.J., N.J., A.J., and L.J.;
18 e JUSTIN EFROS on behalf of J.A.E. and J.R.E.;
19 e RENEE GILMORE on behalf of M.W.;
20 e JAY GOODWIN on behalf A.G.; and
21 e BOBBI DISHMAN on behalf of C.D.
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9,202] avon Lom han M □□
26 HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
27
28