Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed suit against G6 Hospitality, LLC, and other defendants. Jane Doe 2 is a minor. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1, the biological mother of Jane Doe 2, moved to be appointed as guardian ad litem for her child pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) and Local Rule 202(a). The motion was taken under submission on the papers with no opposition filed. The court found that Jane Doe 1 had no conflict of interest with her minor child, as their claims are aligned and arise from the same operative facts, and deemed her an appropriate guardian ad litem. The court further found that the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) were satisfied.
The court addressed the dispute on the record described in the opinion. Allegations are presented as allegations, and the procedural posture controls what the ruling establishes. The result therefore turns on the motion and evidence actually before the court, not on a final resolution of every claim in the underlying litigation overall.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to appoint Jane Doe 1 as guardian ad litem without prejudice solely because Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide the mandatory disclosure of attorney’s interest required by Local Rule 202(c). That rule requires disclosure of by whom and under what terms the attorney was employed, whether the attorney became involved at the instance of the opposing party, any relationship to that party, and any compensation received or expected. The court ordered Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion complying with Local Rule 202(c) within fourteen days of the order’s entry.
The ruling’s procedural posture and stated remedy are important limits on its reach. The summary therefore describes only the relief actually ordered or recommended and does not convert allegations into findings.
Key Takeaways
- A parent may serve as guardian ad litem for a minor child when their claims are aligned and no conflict of interest exists.
- Compliance with Local Rule 202(c)’s attorney interest disclosure is a mandatory prerequisite for appointment of a guardian ad litem in the Eastern District of California.
- Failure to provide the Rule 202(c) disclosure results in denial without prejudice, not on the merits of the proposed guardian’s suitability.
- The court retains discretion to ensure adequate representation of minors and requires strict adherence to local procedural rules.
- Plaintiffs have 14 days to cure the deficiency by filing a renewed motion with the required disclosures.
Why It Matters
This order underscores the Eastern District of California’s strict enforcement of Local Rule 202(c) in cases involving minor plaintiffs. While the court recognized the presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests and found no conflict of interest between the mother and daughter, it refused to appoint the guardian ad litem due to a purely procedural deficiency by counsel. The ruling highlights that attorney disclosure obligations regarding employment terms, potential conflicts, and compensation are non-negotiable prerequisites for protecting minor litigants, even when the proposed guardian is otherwise qualified and unopposed.
For California practitioners, the order supplies a concrete application of the governing standard and a reminder to preserve the procedural steps and evidentiary record on which relief depends.