Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This civil action was filed by the Estate of Katrina Zane Lee Yates and others against the County of Sacramento and other defendants. Minor plaintiff H.K. is a party to the suit. Non-party Haven Key Jr., the biological father of H.K., filed a motion (Doc.
No. 4) seeking appointment as guardian ad litem for his son pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 202. No opposition to the motion was filed. The court considered the motion on the papers, evaluating whether Key Jr. was an appropriate representative and whether the procedural requirements for appointment—including disclosure of counsel’s fee arrangement—had been satisfied.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion and appointed Haven Key Jr. as guardian ad litem for minor plaintiff H.K., authorizing him to prosecute the action on the child’s behalf. The court found Key Jr. to be an appropriate guardian based on his declaration that he has no foreseeable interests adverse to H.K., satisfying the requirement that a guardian be dedicated to the minor’s best interests.
The court also found that the requirements of Local Rule 202(c) were met: plaintiffs’ counsel disclosed a contingency fee arrangement with Key Jr. dated July 24, 2025, confirmed she was not retained by any defendant, has no relationship with defendants, and expects compensation only upon settlement or verdict. The court declined to rule on the reasonableness of the contingency fee—which exceeds the district’s typical 25% benchmark for minor cases—stating that issue need not be resolved at the appointment stage.
Key Takeaways
- The court appoints a biological parent as guardian ad litem upon a showing of no conflict of interest and dedication to the child’s best interests, consistent with the presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests (Troxel v. Granville).
- Local Rule 202(c) requires full disclosure of counsel’s fee arrangement, including contingency percentages, absence of defendant involvement, and lack of prior relationships with adverse parties.
- The court expressly deferred ruling on the reasonableness of a contingency fee exceeding the district’s 25% benchmark for minor cases, noting such determinations are reserved for later stages (e.g., settlement approval).
- Appointment of a guardian ad litem is a discretionary, protective measure—not a mere formality—requiring the court to ensure the representative will truly safeguard the minor’s interests during litigation.
- No opposition was filed to the motion, and the court granted it on the papers without a hearing.
Why It Matters
The order is useful in cases involving minor plaintiffs because appointment and fee approval are separate safeguards. A parent’s lack of adverse interests supported appointment, while disclosure of the contingency agreement satisfied the local rule at this stage. Counsel should not treat that appointment as advance approval of the fee. Any later compromise involving the minor will remain subject to independent scrutiny.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) permits a minor to proceed through a representative, and the local rule requires early appointment or an explanation why it is unnecessary. The court found no apparent conflict between Haven Key Jr. and his biological son H.K. Counsel also disclosed that compensation depended on a recovery and that no defendant had retained or compensated counsel. Although the disclosed percentage exceeded a benchmark often used in minor cases, the court expressly left reasonableness for a later proceeding.