United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2019

Roe v. Grossmont Union High School District

Roe v. Grossmont Union High School District
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided October 11, 2019
Roe v. Grossmont Union High School District

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROE, a minor, by and through her Case No.: 19-CV-1966-CAB-BGS Guardian ad Litem, JUSTIN SLAGLE, ORDER REGARDING PETITION Plaintiff, 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., [Doc. No. 3.]

Defendants.

18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Roe’s Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem. [Doc. No. 3.]

20 The Petition states that Justin Slagle is the father of Minor Plaintiff Roe with legal and physical custody, and requests the Court appoint Justin Slagle as guardian ad litem.

22 [Doc. No. 3 at ¶¶ 2-3.] It is unclear why it is necessary to separately appoint Mr. Slagle as guardian ad litem in this lawsuit, when it appears that he is a general guardian who can sue on his child’s behalf. See Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13- CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (holding that parents’ application for appointment as guardian ad litem was unnecessary, noting that “Rule 17(c)(1)(A) permits a ‘general guardian’ to sue in federal court on behalf of a minor, and ‘[a] parent is a guardian who may so sue.’”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

1 Accordingly, the Petition to appoint Justin Slagle as the guardian ad litem for || Plaintiff Roe is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner may re-file the petition || with citation to legal authority and explanation as to why the appointment of a guardian ad || litem is necessary in this case.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 || Dated: October 11, 2019 € Z Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.