The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
CRISTINA RAMIREZ FONUA, et al.,
10 Case No. 21-cv-03644-RS
Plaintiffs,
11
v. ORDER REQUESTING
12 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
CITY OF HAYWARD, et al., REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF
13 GUARDIAN AD LITEM
Defendants.
14
15 Plaintiffs seek to substitute as guardian ad litem minor child B.H.R.’s mother, Kendra
16 Garcia, for B.H.R.’s current guardian ad litem and grandmother, Cristina Ramirez Fonua.
17 Plaintiffs point out Garcia is B.H.R.’s current legal guardian and assert she has no conflicting
18 interests with B.H.R. In their previous motion requesting Fonua’s appointment as guardian ad
19 litem in 2021, Plaintiffs represented “there was a Child Protective Services [CPS] proceeding to
20 remove B.H.R. from [Garcia’s] custody in early 2020” and they were “unable to contact” Garcia.
21 Dkt. 25, at 2.1 In their current motion, Plaintiffs offer no explanation regarding how this removal
22 proceeding by CPS, or their previous inability to locate Garcia, might bear on whether Garcia is a
23 suitable guardian ad litem for B.H.R.
24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) entrusts district courts with the responsibility to
25 safeguard the interests of minor litigants. See, e.g., Konen v. Caldeira, No. 22-cv-5195, 2023 WL
26 4595143, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2023) (citing Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th
27
1 Cir. 2011)). The district court, therefore, must ensure a guardian ad litem will represent the minor
2 child’s best interests. Brown v. Alexander, No. 13-cv-1451, 2015 WL 7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
3 || Nov. 20, 2015) (citing Williams v. Sup. Ct., 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)). A
4 || parent may not control or influence a minor child’s litigation where they have an actual or
5 potential conflict of interest with the minor child. Williams, 147 Cal. App. at 50.
6 In order to ensure no conflict of interest exists between Garcia and B.H.R., Plaintiffs are
7 directed to provide supplemental briefing (if appropriate, under seal) by November 3, 2023,
8 || explaining (1) whether CPS removed B.H.R. from Garcia’s custody in 2020, and, if so, why CPS
9 || took this action, (2) the circumstances of Plaintiffs’ inability to locate Garcia in 2021, and (3) why
10 Garcia should be appointed guardian ad litem, assuming B.H.R. was removed from her custody in
11 2020, notwithstanding this removal. Defendants are also invited (but not required) to file briefing
12 || on whether Garcia would be a suitable guardian ad litem for B.H.R. by November 3, 2023.
|) 1, ISSO ORDERED.
a 16 Dated: October 23, 2023
8 RICHARD SEEBORG _
Chief United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
98 ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
. CASE No. 21-cv-03644-RS