1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 L.V.Q., Case No. 1:24-cv-00656-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFF L.V.Q. 13 v. (Doc. 61) 14 THE GEO GROUP, INC., ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 15 Defendant. STAY AS MOOT

16 (Doc. 68)

17 14-DAY DEADLINE 18 Pending before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff L.V.Q. (“Plaintiff”) to appoint guardian ad 19 litem, filed on September 29, 2025. (Doc. 61).1 (Docs. 8, 9). On October 6, 2025, Defendant The GEO 20 Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed an opposition, and on October 15, 2025, Plaintiff replied. (Docs. 66, 21 67). The Court deems the motion suitable for disposition without hearing and oral argument. See Local 22 Rule 230(g). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment 23 of guardian ad litem for L.V.Q. Further, because Defendant’s pending, later-filed motion to stay seeks 24 a stay only until such time as a guardian ad litem is appointed (see generally Doc. 68), Defendant’s 25 motion will be denied as moot. 26 27 1 On September 30, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed request to seal documents 28 (Doc. 60) that was filed in connection with the instant motion to appoint guardian ad litem. (Doc. 62); see (Docs. 63-65). 1 I. Background 2 Plaintiff L.V.Q. initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on June 3, 2024. (Doc. 1). In 3 the operative, first amended complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff asserts state law causes of action against 4 Defendant. (Doc. 9). On June 5, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to proceed under 5 pseudonym and for protective order. (Doc. 6). On October 24, 2024, the Court entered the operative 6 scheduling order setting forth discovery, motion and pretrial and trial dates and deadlines. (Doc. 22). 7 On July 21, 2025, Defendant filed an initial motion to appoint guardian ad litem for Plaintiff. 8 (Doc. 39). The next day, the Court reset the hearing on the motion to September 8, 2025, before the 9 undersigned. (Doc. 43). Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on July 30, 2025, and Defendant replied 10 on August 11, 2025. On September 2, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for the hearing on 11 Defendant’s initial motion to appoint guardian ad litem. (Doc. 53). 12 On September 8, 2025, the Court held the hearing on Defendant’s initial motion, at which 13 Plaintiff L.V.Q. was sworn and testified. (Doc. 55). The Court granted Defendant’s motion for 14 appointment of guardian ad litem in part and ordered Plaintiff to file an application for the appointment 15 of guardian ad litem compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and Local Rule 202 within 21 16 days of entry of the order. Id. 17 At the Court’s direction, on September 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending motion to appoint 18 guardian ad litem for L.V.Q. and a notice of request to seal documents in connection therewith. (Docs. 19 60, 61). The next day, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed request to seal documents. (Doc. 62); 20 see (Docs. 63-65). 21 II. Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem 22 A. Governing Authority 23 Pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a representative of a minor may sue 24 or defend on the minor’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). A court “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or 25 issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an 26 action.” Id. The capacity of an individual to sue is determined “by the law of the individual’s domicile.” 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). 28 1 Under California law, an individual under the age of 18 is a minor, and a minor may bring suit 2 if a guardian conducts the proceedings.

, 6601. The Court may appoint a 3 guardian ad litem to represent the minor’s interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a). To evaluate whether 4 to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the Court must consider whether the minor and the guardian 5 have divergent interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(b)(1); see id. § 372(d)(1)–(2) (“Before a court appoints 6 a guardian ad litem pursuant to this chapter, a proposed guardian ad litem shall disclose both of the 7 following to the court and all parties to the action or proceeding: (1) Any known actual or potential 8 conflicts of interest that would or might arise from the appointment[; and] (2) [a]ny familial or affiliate 9 relationship the proposed guardian ad litem as with any of the parties.”). 10 The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. United States v. 30.64 11 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cty., State of Wash.,

(9th Cir. 12 1986). A Court shall take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests of the 13 individual during the litigation. See

(noting, “[a] guardian ad litem is authorized to act on behalf of 14 his ward and may make all appropriate decisions in the course of specific litigation.”). The guardian 15 need not possess any special qualifications, but she must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the 16 person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp.3d 1042, 17 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas,

(1990)). This means that 18 the guardian cannot face an impermissible conflict of interest with the ward, and courts consider the 19 candidate’s “experience, objectivity and expertise” or previous relationship with the ward.

(citations 20 omitted). 21 Further, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide: 22 (a) Appointment of Representative or Guardian. Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent 23 person, the attorney representing the minor or incompetent person shall present (1) appropriate evidence of the appointment of a representative for the minor or incompetent 24 person under state law or (2) a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the 25 Court, or (3) a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or incompetent person. See Fed. R. Civ.

(c); …

27

(c) Disclosure of Attorney’s Interest. When the minor or incompetent is represented by an 28 attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the 1 attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of action are asserted, 2 directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, 3 and the amount. (E.D. Cal. Local Rule 202). 4

5 The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion of the 6 trial court.” 30.64 Acres of Land,

. Fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests 7 of their children. Troxel v. Granville,

(2000). However, “if the parent has an actual or 8 potential conflict of interest with [their] child, the parent has no right to control or influence the child’s 9 litigation.” Molesky for J.M. v. Carillo, No. 1:22-cv-1567-ADA-CDB,

, at *1 (E.D. 10 Cal. Dec. 12, 2022) (quoting Williams v. Super. Ct. of San Diego,

(2007)). 11 B. Parties’ Contentions 12 Plaintiff seeks the Court appoint his sister, “Krystina A.,” as his guardian ad litem, because she 13 has “historically assisted L.V.Q. in making his own decisions, has consistently demonstrated that she 14 will act in his best interest, and does not have a conflict of interest[.]” (Doc. 61 at 2). Plaintiff asserts 15 that Krystina A., as Plaintiff’s younger sister, has assisted him throughout his life, including reminding 16 and ensuring that he “attends any immigration and other reporting requirements, managing [] finances, 17 and assisting his attorneys in his criminal and immigration matters, including while [Plaintiff] was 18 detained at Mesa Verde.”

Plaintiff asserts Krystina A. has assisted him in understanding and making 19 decisions in the present case, and Plaintiff has recently executed a financial and medical power of 20 attorney agreement and a supported decision-making agreement with Krystina A, “formalizing [her] 21 role in assisting [Plaintiff] in life decisions where he needs assistance.”

Plaintiff asserts his sister 22 agrees to serve as his guardian ad litem for purposes of this litigation and will continue to act in his best 23 interests in this role.

Plaintiff further asserts Krystina A. has no interests adverse to his own, she is 24 not a party to this case, and the only claims asserted here are asserted on behalf of Plaintiff. Id. at 4. 25 Krystina A. declares that she understands that as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem, she would act in his best 26 interests, has no interests divergent to Plaintiff, is unaware of any potential conflict of interest, and 27 wishes to be appointed his guardian ad litem. Id.; see (Doc. 61-1, Declaration of Krystina A. (“Krystina 28 A. Decl.”)); (Docs. 62-65) (filed under seal). Counsel for Plaintiff declares, pursuant to Local Rule 202, 1 that Plaintiff signed retainers with both Immigrant Legal Defense (“ILD”) and Romanucci & Blandin 2 Law, that ILD has represented Plaintiff at the request of Plaintiff’s court-appointed immigration attorney 3 shortly after he was attacked at Mesa Verde, that ILD attorneys act as co-counsel in this matter with 4 counsel from Romanucci & Blandin Law, and that co-counsel from both firms did not become involved 5 in this case at the urging of Defendant nor have any relationship with Defendant or any other conflict of 6 interest. (Doc. 61 at 5-6); see (Doc. 61-2, Declaration of Jessica Zhang (“Zhang Decl.”)); (Docs. 62- 7 65) (filed under seal). Counsel for Plaintiff declares that co-counsel for Plaintiff have a contingency fee 8 retainer with Plaintiff and will split the contingency fee equally. Id. 9 Defendant argues that Krystina A. is not an individual independent of the litigation as she was 10 named a percipient witness in Plaintiff’s initial Rule 26(a) disclosures, is referred to in investigative 11 reporting completed during the investigation of Plaintiff’s sexual assault claim and presents a conflict 12 of interest such that she should not be appointed as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. (Doc. 66 at 2); see 13 (Doc. 66-1, Declaration of Deann R. Rivard (“Rivard Decl.”)). Defendant argues that, alternatively, if 14 Plaintiff is willing to remove Krystina A. as a witness in Plaintiff’s case against Defendant, Defendant’s 15 objection would be rendered moot as no other conflict of interest, actual or otherwise, would disqualify 16 her appointment as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. Id. at 6. 17 In reply, Plaintiff argues Defendant fails to identify any actual or potential conflict in its 18 opposition. (Doc. 67 at 2). Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to identify any case law that bars fact 19 witnesses from serving as guardian ad litem in federal court and fails to distinguish the many cases 20 Plaintiff cited in his application showing that “co-parties may serve as guardians ad litem where they 21 have no non-speculative conflicts.” Id. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s asserted conflict of Krystina 22 A.’s personal interest in preserving her own credibility and avoiding impeachment is purely speculative. 23 Id. at 2-3. 24 C. Analysis 25 The Court determined following a competency hearing that L.V.Q. is incompetent to pursue this 26 action pursuant to Rule 17. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17; (Doc. 55). Krystina A. attests to her willingness to 27 be appointed as guardian ad litem for L.V.Q. Krystina A. is L.V.Q.’s adult sister and sets forth that she 28 executed financial and medical powers of attorney agreements and a supported decision-making 1 agreement with L.V.Q. Krystina A. Decl. ¶¶ 1, 7. In her declaration, Krystina A. represents that she 2 does not have any relationship with Defendant nor any interests that conflict with L.V.Q.’s best interests, 3 nor does she know of any potential conflicts of interest. Id. ¶ 9. She declares that she is not a party in 4 this case and does not have any claims in this case. Id. 5 Here, the Court finds that the standards for the appointment of Krystina A. as guardian ad litem 6 for L.V.Q. have been met and that she is competent and qualified to serve as guardian ad litem for 7 L.V.Q. See, e.g., Elliott v. Versa CIC, L.P.,

, 556 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (approving 8 appointment of plaintiff’s adult daughter, also acting as her power of attorney, as guardian ad litem 9 where plaintiff was found incompetent to pursue the action due to Alzheimer’s disease); Yaqub v. 10 Paynter, No. 1:23-cv-01482-EPG,

, *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023) (approving 11 appointment of plaintiff’s adult sister as guardian ad litem where the proposed guardian ad litem 12 declared that plaintiff is not legally competent to bring his own lawsuit); Fletcher for Rose v. Fresno 13 Food Concept, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00180-AWI-BAM,

, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2022) 14 (appointing plaintiff’s adult daughter as guardian ad litem for plaintiff, who was incapacitated with a 15 traumatic brain injury, where the proposed guardian ad litem indicated she has durable power of attorney 16 and healthcare Power of attorney for plaintiff); Local Rule 202(a). Defendant’s objections that Krystina 17 A. should not be appointed as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff—because she, as Plaintiff’s sister, “is a 18 percipient witness to … issues” of this case (Doc. 66 at 3) and therefore has a conflict of interest that 19 precludes her from serving as guardian ad litem—are unavailing. Defendant fails to show how Krystina 20 A., as a percipient witness in this case based on her familial relationship with Plaintiff, presents any 21 actual or potential conflict of interest that would bar her from being able to serve as Plaintiff’s guardian 22 ad litem. As the above-cited authority illustrates, this Court and other courts within this District have 23 appointed family members who otherwise meet the standards under the Federal Rules and the Local 24 Rules as guardian ad litem for incompetent or incapacitated plaintiffs even where the proposed guardian 25 ad litem is witness or a co-plaintiff in the action. See id.; Robbins v. Mscripts, LLC, No. 23-cv-01381- 26 LB,

, *2-4 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2023) (appointing plaintiff’s wife as his guardian ad 27 litem where plaintiff was mentally incompetent with brain disease and dementia and plaintiff’s wife 28 represented she was plaintiff’s primary caregiver with durable power of attorney for plaintiff and was 1 his agent to make healthcare decisions without attaching any exhibits thereto); Daigle v. City of 2 Oceanside, No. 19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG),

, *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) (rejecting 3 defendant’s opposition to the appointment of a proposed guardian ad litem based on her status as a co- 4 plaintiff in addition to her familial relationship with plaintiff because, “[w]hile the potential for a 5 theoretical conflict exists, [the court] is not persuaded that an actual conflict exists now” as “the potential 6 conflict identified here is too speculative and premature” and “the Court will have the authority to 7 remove [the proposed guardian ad litem] … if the need arises in the future.”). 8 Based on the Court’s review of the filings, declarations of the proposed guardian ad litem 9 Krystina A. and of counsel for Plaintiff submitted under seal, and consideration of Defendant’s 10 objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adduced appropriate evidence of the appointment of 11 a representative for L.V.Q. consistent with state law and the Local Rules such that the Court will appoint 12 Krystina A. as L.V.Q.’s guardian ad litem under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) and Local 13 Rule 202(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2); Local Rule 202(a). 14 D. Requirement for Guardian ad Litem to be Represented by Counsel 15 A guardian ad litem is authorized to act on behalf of the incompetent party, “make all appropriate 16 decisions in the course of specific litigation,” “make binding contracts for the retention of counsel and 17 expert witnesses and may settle the claim[.]” 30.64 Acres of Land,

. However, as is the 18 case here, a party with a non-attorney guardian ad litem must have counsel in order to litigate a case. 19 See Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego,

, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear 20 pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”) (quotation 21 and citation omitted). 22 Accordingly, the Court will direct Plaintiff to file either a notice of appearance on behalf of 23 Krystina A. or a report setting forth why she may proceed without counsel. 24 25 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank 26 27 28 1|)/II. Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion to appoint Krystina A. as guardian ad litem for L.V.Q. (Doc. 61) 4 GRANTED; 5 2. Krystina A. is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff L.V.Q. and is authorized 6 prosecute the action on L.V.Q.’s behalf; 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect the name of □□□□□□□ 8 A. as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff L.V.Q.; 9 4. Within 14 days of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall file either a notice of appearance 10 behalf of Krystina A. or a report setting forth why she may proceed without counsel; and 11 5. Defendant’s motion to stay proceedings (Doc. 68) is DENIED as moot. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: _ October 28, 2025 | Wr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28