Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Z.T., a minor, sued the United States in the Eastern District of California together with Macy McCoy and Demmari Thomas, who are also named plaintiffs. Z.T.'s application asked the court to appoint his mother, McCoy, as his guardian ad litem, and it was supported by a declaration from McCoy. The order does not describe the underlying claims, so this article addresses only the procedural ruling.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) allows a minor to sue through a duly appointed representative. Under Local Rule 202(a), a party suing on behalf of a minor must present evidence of a representative's appointment under state law, a motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem, or a showing that no appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation. Local Rule 202(c) adds that when the minor has an attorney, the court must be told by whom and on what terms the attorney was employed, whether the attorney became involved at the instance of the party against whom the claims are asserted, whether the attorney has any relationship to that party, and whether the attorney has received or expects compensation, from whom, and in what amount.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta denied the motion without prejudice. The court reviewed the motion and McCoy's declaration and found no apparent conflict of interest and no other factor showing that appointing McCoy would be contrary to Z.T.'s best interests, noting that she is his mother, that he lives with her, and that she is also a plaintiff. The defect was procedural: the filing did not comply with Local Rule 202(c) because it did not disclose Z.T.'s attorney's interest and other details required by that rule. Because that information was missing, the court declined to grant the appointment at this time.
The court framed the issue by stressing that appointing a guardian ad litem is not a mere formality. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, it explained that a guardian ad litem may act for the ward and make appropriate decisions in the litigation, and that the role exists to safeguard the minor's interests. It also noted that a parent is generally appointed, and that separate representation is unnecessary when parent and child plainly share the same interests, but that conflicts between the two can arise in some situations.
The order directs Plaintiff to file, within ten days, a revised motion that complies with Local Rule 202. Because the denial is without prejudice, it is not a final judgment and does not decide whether McCoy will ultimately be appointed. The order does not address the consequences of missing the ten-day deadline, and the case itself remains pending.
Key Takeaways
- A motion to appoint a parent as guardian ad litem in the Eastern District of California should include the attorney-interest disclosures Local Rule 202(c) requires, even when no conflict between parent and child is apparent.
- The court's finding of no apparent conflict was not enough, because the Local Rule disclosures are a separate requirement.
- A denial without prejudice invites a cure rather than ending the request, and here the court set a ten-day deadline for a revised motion.
- The order concerns only the guardian ad litem motion and makes no ruling on the merits of the claims against the United States.
- Because the court treats appointment as a safeguard for the minor rather than a formality, counsel should expect the supporting papers to be read closely.
Why It Matters
This order is not reported and carries no precedential weight beyond showing how this court applies its own rules. It is useful mainly as a practical reminder that Local Rule 202 has two distinct requirements: a showing that the proposed guardian is suitable, and disclosure of the minor's attorney's interest and compensation arrangements. A court may be satisfied on the first and still deny the motion on the second.
For practitioners representing minors in federal court in the Eastern District, the lesson is to file the guardian ad litem motion with the Rule 202(c) disclosures from the start to avoid a second round of papers and delay. What remains open is whether the revised motion will satisfy the court and whether McCoy will be appointed; the order expresses no concern about her suitability.