Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This matter arose from a motion filed by non-party Arenisha Thomas seeking appointment as guardian ad litem for her biological niece, minor Plaintiff N.J., in a civil action against the County of Sacramento and other defendants. The motion was unopposed.
The court evaluated the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), which authorizes a minor to sue by a next friend or guardian ad litem and requires the court to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect an unrepresented minor. The court also applied Local Rule 202(a) of the Eastern District of California, which mandates the filing of a motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem upon commencement of an action by or on behalf of a minor, and Local Rule 202(c), which requires disclosure of the attorney’s employment terms, relationships to adverse parties, and fee arrangements.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion and appointed Arenisha Thomas as guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff N.J., authorizing her to prosecute the action on N.J.’s behalf. The court found Thomas to be an appropriate guardian based on her declaration that she has no foreseeable interests adverse to N.J. and her status as biological aunt.
The court further determined that the requirements of Local Rule 202(c) were satisfied: Plaintiffs’ counsel disclosed a contingency fee arrangement dated May 23, 2025, with escalating percentages (33.33% pre-suit, 40% post-filing/mediation, 45% after one year of litigation), confirmed no involvement at the instance of any defendant, no relationship with defendants, and no compensation received to date. The court declined to rule on the reasonableness of the contingency fee—which exceeds the district’s typical 25% benchmark for minor cases—citing precedent that such determination is not required at the appointment stage.
Key Takeaways
- The court appointed a biological aunt as guardian ad litem for a minor plaintiff based on her declaration of no adverse interests, satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) and Local Rule 202(a).
- Plaintiffs’ counsel fully disclosed a contingency fee agreement with escalating rates (33.33% to 45%) pursuant to Local Rule 202(c), including acknowledgment that the rates exceed the district’s 25% benchmark for minor cases.
- The court deferred ruling on the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, following precedent that fee reasonableness need not be resolved at the guardian ad litem appointment stage.
- The motion was unopposed, and the court found all local rule disclosure requirements satisfied.
- The appointment authorizes the guardian ad litem to prosecute the action on behalf of the minor plaintiff.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the guardian’s suitability from the economics of counsel’s engagement. A relative may qualify by demonstrating loyalty to the child, but full fee disclosure remains mandatory. The escalating percentages were disclosed and did not prevent appointment; they were not approved. Counsel should preserve the record needed for later review of any minor’s compromise and requested fee.
Rule 17(c) is designed to ensure that a child’s litigation interests are protected by an appropriate adult. Thomas declared that she had no foreseeable adverse interest to her niece N.J., and no party opposed appointment. The fee disclosure identified percentages that increased after filing, mediation, and extended litigation. Those figures exceeded the district’s usual minor-case benchmark, but the court explained that fee reasonableness did not have to be decided at the guardian-appointment stage. The order therefore resolved representation only.