1 Daniel R. Shaw (SB No. 281387) [email protected] 2 Julia H. Baker (SB No. 340457) [email protected] 3 Snyder & Shaw LLP 4 3196 S. Higuera Street, Suite E San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5 Telephone: (805) 439-4646 Facsimile: (805) 301-8030 6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11

12 R.H., a minor, by and through his guardian ad CASE NO.: TBD 1:25-cv-00826-RMI litem Chris Hatton, 13 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING 14 GUARDIAN AD LITEM v. 15 Coastal Grove Charter School, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 On January 10, 2025, Chris Hatton, as proposed guardian ad litem of R.H., a minor child, 20 and Defendant Coastal Grove Charter School (“the Charter”), filed a Joint Petition for Approval 21 of Minor’s Compromise. The same day, Plaintiff R.H. filed a motion to appoint his mother, Tera 22 Palmer, as guardian ad litem. 23 “To maintain a suit in a federal court, a child or mental incompetent must be represented 24 by a competent adult.” Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary School Dist., 2:13-cv- 25 01145,

at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (citation omitted). Rule 17(c) governs 26 the appearance of minors and incompetent person in federal court. Rule 17(c)(1) prescribes: 27 “The following representative may sue or defend of behalf of a minor or incompetent person: (A) 28 a general guardian; (B) a committee; (C) a conservator; or (D) a like fiduciary.” Rule 17(c)(2) 1 || states that, “[a] minor or an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed 2 || representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a 3 || guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person 4 || who is unrepresented in an action.” 5 A court has broad discretion in ruling on a guardian ad litem application. Basque v. Cty. 6 || of Placer,

at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2017). In general, a parent is 7 presumed to act in his or her child’s best interest. See Parham v. J.R.,

(U.S. 8 1979) (noting general presumption that parents are presumed to act in the child’s best interest). 9 || Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff R-H.’s motion to appoint Chris Hatton as his guardian ad 10 litem should be granted. Mr. Hatton, as Plaintiff R.H.’s father, is presumed to act in his best 11 interests, and there is nothing before the Court to undermine that presumption here. 12 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff R.H.’s “Petition for Guardian ad Litem” is GRANTED; and 14 2. Chris Hatton is hereby appointed as Plaintiff R.H.’s guardian ad litem. 15 16 / Mf loo 17 Dated: January 31, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 Magistrate 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28