The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 AISHA JAMILAH TIGGS, et al. No. 2:22-cv-02163-DC-SCR
12 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF
13 v. AISHA JAMILAH TIGGS FOR
APPOINTMENT AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM
14 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, FOR MINOR PLAINTIFF M.T.C., JR.
15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 24)
16
17 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs’ application for
18 appointment as guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff M.T.C., Jr. (Doc. No. 24.) No opposition to
19 the pending application has been filed. For the reasons explained below, the court will grant
20 Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs’ application.
21 Under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor or an incompetent
22 person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a
23 guardian ad litem.” “The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate
24 order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ.
25 P. 17(c)(2). A representative of a minor or incompetent person may sue or defend on behalf of the
26 minor or incompetent person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).
27 The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. United States v.
28 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805
1 (9th Cir. 1986). A court shall take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests
2 of the individual during the litigation. Id. The guardian need not possess special qualifications,
3 but he must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to
4 litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting
5 Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990)).
6 In this district, Local Rule 202(a) further provides, in pertinent part:
7 Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in
defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor . . . the attorney
8 representing the minor or incompetent person shall present . . . a
motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or
9 . . . a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is
necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or
10 incompetent person.
11 L.R. 202(a) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). Local Rule 202 also requires disclosure of the
12 attorney’s interest, specifically requiring the following:
13 When the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, it shall
be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the
14 attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the
application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of
15 action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands
in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has
16 received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and
the amount.
17
18 L.R. 202(c).
19 The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion
20 of the trial court.” 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 804. Fit parents are presumed to act in the
21 best interests of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). However, “if the
22 parent has an actual or potential conflict of interest with [their] child, the parent has no right to
23 control or influence the child’s litigation.” Molesky for J.M. v. Carillo, No. 1:22-cv-1567-ADA-
24 CDB, 2022 WL 17584396, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022) (quoting Williams v. Super. Ct. of San
25 Diego, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 50 (2007)).
26 The proposed guardian ad litem, Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs, is the biological mother of
27 Plaintiff M.T.C., Jr. (Doc. No. 24 at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs consents to act as a
28 guardian ad litem for Plaintiff M.T.C., Jr. (Doc. No. 24-1.) Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs asserts
1 | there is no inherent conflict of interest between her claims and her son’s claims. (Doc. No. 24 at
2 | 2.) Based on the representations in Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs’ application, and a review of the
3 || operative complaint, the court finds no conflicts in Plaintiffs M.T.C., Jr. and Aisha Jamilah Tiggs’
4 | claims. See J.M. v. Liberty Union High Sch. Dist., No. 16-cv-05225-LB, 2016 WL 4942999, at *2
5 | (N.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2024) (“Generally, when a minor is represented by a parent who is a party to
6 || the lawsuit and who has the same interests as the child there is no inherent conflict of interest.”).
7 | Further, the court finds Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs to be an appropriate guardian ad litem for
8 | Plaintiff M.T.C., Jr., and the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) have been satisfied.
9 The application also meets the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). Counsel Sanjay S.
10 | Schmidt declares he was retained to represent Plaintiffs Aisha Jamilah Tiggs, Sequoia Brown,
11 | Mykeal Crumb, Simon McCormick, Jr., M.T.C., Jr., and N.C. on a pro bono basis. (Doc. No. 26
12 || at 75.) Counsel Schmidt states his office has also incurred substantial case costs, which he has
13 | decided also to provide to Plaintiffs on a pro bono basis. (/d. at 4 8.) Counsel Schmidt asserts he
14 | did not become involved in this case at the instance of the County of San Joaquin or any other
15 | party against whom the causes of actions are asserted, and he does not stand in any relationship
16 | with any of the parties or attorneys in this lawsuit. (/d. at 4 8.)
17 Accordingly:
18 1. Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs’ application for appointment as guardian ad litem for
19 Plaintiff M.T.C., Jr. (Doc. No. 24), is granted; and
20 2. Plaintiff Aisha Jamilah Tiggs is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff
21 M.T.C., Jr. and is authorized to prosecute the action on his behalf.
22
73 IT IS SO ORDERED. □
24 | Dated: _ December 30, 2024 RY Oc
Dena Coggins
25 United States District Judge
26
27
28