Hubbard v. Google LLC

1 Jonathan K. Levine (SBN 220289) David S. Golub (admitted pro hac vice) Elizabeth C. Pritzker (SBN 146267) Steven L. Bloch (admitted pro hac vice) Caroline C. Corbitt (SBN 305492) Ian W. Sloss (admitted pro hac vice) PRITZKER LEVINE LLP SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 184 Atlantic Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes and Subclasses 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION C.H., a minor, by and through their guardian ad Case No. 5:19-cv-07016-BLF litem NICHOLE HUBBARD; E.J., N.J., A.J., and L.J., minors, by and through their guardian ad CLASS ACTION litem CARA JONES; J.A.E. and J.R.E., minors, by and through their guardian ad litem JUSTIN [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING EFROS; M.W., a minor, by and through their GUARDIAN AD LITEMS guardian ad litem RENEE GILMORE; A.G., a minor, by and through their guardian ad litem JAY Hon. Beth Labson Freeman GOODWIN; C.D, a minor, by and through their guardian ad litem BOBBI DISHMAN; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, 20 v. GOOGLE LLC; YOUTUBE LLC; CARTOON NETWORK, INC.; CARTOON NETWORK STUDIOS, INC.; CHUCHU TV STUDIOS; DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC; DREAMWORKS ANIMATION TELEVISION, LLC; HASBRO, INC.; HASBRO STUDIOS LLC; MATTEL, INC.; POCKETWATCH, INC.; REMKA, INC.; RTR PRODUCTION LLC; AND RFR ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 27 Defendants.

1 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Application to Appoint Guardian Ad Litems || and all supporting declarations. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to || take proper measures to protect a minor during litigation, including appointing a guardian ad litem || for a minor without a duly appointed representative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). “The decision to appoint 5 guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c) is normally left to the sound discretion of the trial court[.]”

6 || Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). ‘“When there is no conflict of interest, the || guardian ad litem appointment is usually made on ex parte application [.]”’ Student A v. Berkeley || Unified School District, Case No. 17-cv-02510-MEJ, 2017 WL 2171254, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 17, || 2017) (citations omitted). There are no special requirements for the person acting as guardian ad || litem, and the main focus is furthering the best interests of the minor. Kulya y. City and County of || San Francisco, No. C 06-06539 JSW, 2007 WL 760776, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007).

12 The Court finds that appointing guardian ad litems as requested by Plaintiffs is appropriate: || the applicants have a strong interest in their children’s welfare, are willing and able to pursue this || action on behalf of their children, have no conflicts of interest, and are acting in good faith. The || Court makes the following appointments: 16 e NICHOLE HUBBARD on behalf of C.H.; 17 e CARA JONES on behalf of E.J., N.J., A.J., and L.J.; 18 e JUSTIN EFROS on behalf of J.A.E. and J.R.E.; 19 e RENEE GILMORE on behalf of M.W.; 20 e JAY GOODWIN on behalf A.G.; and 21 e BOBBI DISHMAN on behalf of C.D.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9,202] avon Lom han M □□ 26 HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge