Estate of Ben Cunningham et al v. County of San Diego et al

1
3:26-cv-1185-CAB-BLM
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESTATE OF BEN CUNNINGHAM, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1185-CAB-BLM
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS
TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD
LITEM
[Doc. Nos. 4, 5]
This matter is before the Court on an application by Daisy Figueroa (“Figueroa”) to
be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff B.N.C., [Doc. No. 4], and an application
by Juan Cunningham (“Cunningham”) to be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff
J.M.C, [Doc. No. 5]. 	For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Figueroa’s application
and GRANTS Cunningham’s application.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case arises from the death of Ben Cunningham while he was held at San Diego
County Central Jail. 	The Plaintiffs consist of the Estate of Ben Cunningham by and
through his successors-in-interest 	B.N.C. and J.M.C.; J.M.C., individually; 	B.N.C.,
individually; and Pamela Cunningham Solano, individually. 	B.N.C. is the decedent’s
minor daughter, J.M.C is his minor son, and Solano is his mother. Plaintiffs assert causes
Case 3:26-cv-01185-CAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-1185-CAB-BLM
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
of action for constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various
Defendants, including the County of San Diego, Kelly Martinez (San Diego County
Sheriff), and Jon Montgomery (Chief Medical Officer for the Sheriff’s Department).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) states that a minor “who does not have a
duly appointed representative may sue . . . by a guardian ad litem” and that the “court must
appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor . . .
who is unrepresented in an action.” 	“[T]he appointment of a guardian ad litem is more
than a mere formalism.” 	United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in
Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986). The guardian must “be
truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate” and
not 	face 	an 	impermissible 	conflict 	of 	interest. 	AT&T 	Mobility, 	LLC 	v. 	Yeager,
143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1045 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S.
149, 163–64 (1990)).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Figueroa & B.N.C.
Figueroa states that she is the natural mother of Plaintiff B.N.C., has no interests
potentially adverse to her daughter, is fully competent and qualified to understand and
protect her rights, and resides within the judicial district. [Doc. No. 4-1 at 3.]
If Figueroa is B.N.C.’s mother, and presumably has custody of her, it is unclear why
it would be necessary to appoint Figueroa as guardian ad litem because she therefore would
be B.N.C.’s “general guardian” and could sue on her behalf under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 17(c)(1)(A). 	J.K.J. v. City of San Diego, Case No. 3:19-CV-2123-CAB-RBB,
2019 WL 6329219, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) (citing 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)). Conversely, if Figueroa is B.N.C.’s mother but does not have custody of her,
and is not her general guardian, the Court would need further information about Figueroa
and B.N.C.’s relationship. See J.F v. San Diego Cnty. Unified Sch. Dist., No. 19-CV-2495-
Case 3:26-cv-01185-CAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-1185-CAB-BLM
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
CAB-LL, 2020 WL 30435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020). 	Accordingly, Figueroa’s
application is DENIED without prejudice. If she cannot proceed under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A) as B.N.C.’s general guardian, she may re-file the application
with citation to legal authority and explanation as to why she should be appointed as a
guardian ad litem.
B. 	Cunningham & J.M.C.
Cunningham states that he is J.M.C.’s uncle, has no interests potentially adverse to
his nephew, is fully competent and qualified to understand and protect his rights, and
resides within the judicial district. [Doc. No. 5-1 at 3.] There does not appear to be any
conflict of interest between Cunningham and J.M.C. The Court finds that the standards for
the appointment of Juan Cunningham have been met and that he is qualified to serve as
guardian ad litem. Cunningham’s application is GRANTED.
The Court also notes that it can protect J.M.C if an issue later arises given Local
Rule 17.1(a), which states that: “No action by or on behalf of a minor . . . will be settled,
compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated without court order or
judgment.”
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Daisy Figueroa’s application to be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff
B.N.C. is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. No. 4.] Juan Cunningham’s application to
be appointed guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff J.M.C. is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 5.]
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01185-CAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3