1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMA VIRIYAPUNT, No. 2:24-cv-02078-DC-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 v. VIRIYAPUNT’S RENEWED MOTION TO APPOINT PAUL VIRIYAPUNT AS 14 CENTRAL STATE CREDIT UNION, GUARDIAN AD LITEM

15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 26) 16 17 On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff Norma Viriyapunt filed a motion to appoint Paul 18 Viriyapunt as her guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 20.) The court denied the motion without 19 prejudice because the motion did not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). (Doc. 20 No. 25.) On January 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to appoint Paul Viriyapunt as 21 guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 26.)1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the pending motion is taken 22 under submission to be decided on the papers. Accordingly, the court vacates the hearing on the 23 pending motion scheduled for February 21, 2025. For the reasons explained below, the court will 24 1 Local Rule 202(a) provides “[u]pon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in 25 defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent person, the attorney representing the minor or incompetent person” shall move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The 26 court finds a three-month delay in requesting the appointment of a guardian ad litem for an 27 incompetent person is disfavored. Nonetheless, the court finds good cause exists to excuse Plaintiff’s untimely request for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Plaintiff’s counsel is 28 reminded of his obligation to adhere to the Local Rules. 1 grant the renewed motion and appoint Paul Viriyapunt as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. 2 Under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor or an incompetent 3 person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a 4 guardian ad litem.” “The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 5 order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ.

(c)(2). A representative of a minor or incompetent person may sue or defend on behalf of the 7 minor or incompetent person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 8 The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. United States v. 9 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash.,

, 805 10 (9th Cir. 1986). A court shall take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests 11 of the individual during the litigation.

The guardian need not possess special qualifications, 12 but he must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to 13 litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager,

(E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting 14 Whitmore v. Arkansas,

(1990)). 15 In this district, Local Rule 202(a) further provides, in pertinent part: 16 Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor . . . the attorney 17 representing the minor or incompetent person shall present . . . a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or 18 . . . a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or 19 incompetent person. 20 L.R. 202(a) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). Local Rule 202 also requires disclosure of the 21 attorney’s interest, specifically requiring the following: 22 When the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the 23 attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of 24 action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has 25 received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount. 26 27 L.R. 202(c). 28 The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion 1 of the trial court.” 30.64 Acres of Land,

. 2 The court finds the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) have been satisfied. The proposed 3 | guardian ad litem Paul Viriyapunt represents that he is the son of Plaintiff, who is suffering from 4 | dementia. (Doc. No. 20-1 at 4-5.) Paul Viriyapunt represents Plaintiff is unable to manage her 5 | affairs. Ud. at 4] 6.) Paul Viriyapunt declares he believes his appointment as guardian ad litem is in 6 | Plaintiffs best interest and if he is appointed, he would operate with Plaintiffs best interest in 7 | mind. Cd. at □□□ 7-8.) 8 The motion also meets the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). In a declaration filed in 9 | support of the pending motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel Scott M. Plescia declares that his law firm 10 | Loker Law, APC, was engaged by Paul Viriyapunt to pursue Plaintiff's claim against Defendant 11 Central State Credit Union. (Doc. No. 26-2 at 95.) Attorney Plescia represents the engagement of 12 | Loker Law, APC is on a pure contingency basis, and at this point in time, the firm has not been 13 | compensated in any way. (/d. at {| 6.) Attorney Plescia asserts Loker Law, APC did not become 14 | involved in this case at the instance of Defendant Central State Credit Union and the firm does 15 | not hold any interest adverse to Plaintiff. Ud. at | 7.) 16 For these reasons, the Plaintiff's renewed motion will be granted. 17 Accordingly: 18 1. The renewed motion for the appointment of Paul Viriyapunt as guardian ad litem 19 for Plaintiff Norma Viriyapunt (Doc. No. 26) is granted; 20 2. Paul Viriyapunt is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Norma 21 Viriyapunt and is authorized to prosecute the action on her behalf; and 22 3. In light of this order, the hearing on Plaintiff's renewed motion set for February 23 21, 2025 is vacated. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: _ January 10, 2025 RY Os Dena Coggins 27 United States District Judge 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28