The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 FRANCISCO ARRELLANO, et al., Case No. 23-cv-00187-ASK
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE MOTION TO REMOVE
9 v. PLAINTIFF AS GUARDIAN AD
LITEM
10 SONOMA COUNTY, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 88
Defendants.
11
12
13 Plaintiff Arrellano and his minor son S.A. sue Defendants for the loss of Mr. Arrellano’s
14 custody over S.A. Dkt. 61.1 Defendant Mistry moves to remove Mr. Arrellano as S.A.’s guardian
15 ad litem on the grounds that Mr. Arrellano has lost all custody of S.A. and is prohibited from
16 contacting his son. Dkt. 88. The Court GRANTS Defendant Mistry’s motion because the no-
17 contact order severely undermines Mr. Arrellano’s ability to represent S.A.’s interests.
18 I. DISCUSSION
19 Federal courts may issue appropriate orders “to protect a minor or incompetent person who
20 is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). The Court has a “duty to ensure that the
21 guardian ad litem will represent the best interests” of a minor. Rosalia v. City of Hayward, 2022
22 WL 420227, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022). Generally, a parent who is also a party to the suit is
23 presumed to be a suitable guardian ad litem. Brown v. Alexander, 2015 WL 7350183, at *1 (N.D.
24 Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). But “[w]hen a parent has an actual or potential conflict of interest with his
25 child,” that parent lacks any right “to control or influence the child’s litigation.” Id. (cleaned up).
26
27
1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
] Since being appointed as S.A.’s guardian ad litem, Mr. Arrellano has lost legal and
2 || physical custody of his son. Dkt. 88-3 at 6. He has also been prohibited from contacting S.A. /d. at
3 11. The no-contact order significantly undermines Mr. Arrellano’s ability to represent S.A.’s
4 || interests in this litigation and thus constitutes good cause to remove Mr. Arrellano as S.A.’s
5 || guardian ad litem. See Brown, 2015 WL 7350183, at *2. Accordingly, Defendant Mistry’s motion
6 || is GRANTED.
7 OO CONCLUSION
8 Mr. Arrellano is no longer the guardian ad litem in this matter. Within 14 days of this
9 || order, each party must submit a list of three suitable guardians, along with their contact
10 || information, their agreement to serve, and a brief explanation of why they would be suitable for
11 appointment as guardian ad litem. See Bhatia v. Corrigan, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
%L May 16, 2007).
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 15 || Dated: February 11, 2026
,
AJAY WRI AN
18 United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28