The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANN ROSALIA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00380-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
Vv. PREJUDICE MOTION TO REMOVE
CITY OF HAYWARD, et al., TEND GUARDIAN AT
Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 28
The motion to remove and replace A.R.’s guardian ad litem is denied without prejudice.
Federal courts may issue appropriate orders “to protect a minor or incompetent person who is
unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). The Court has a “duty to ensure that the
guardian ad litem will represent the best interests” of a minor. Brown v. Alexander, 2015 WL
7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). With that obligation in mind, the petition to appoint
Wendy Smith does not sufficiently detail why she is suited to represent A.R.’s interests in this
litigation. It provides only her name, and contains no information suggesting that she is equipped
to protect A.R. The petitioner may submit a renewed motion within 14 days of this order,
containing, at a minimum, “a brief explanation of why” she “would be suitable” to be appointed
guardian ad litem. Bhatia v. Corrigan, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2007).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2022
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge