A.T. et al v. County of San Diego et al

1
26-cv-1276-AJB-DEB
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
A.T. by and through his guardian ad litem
DELIA TAPIZ, JUAN TAPIZ, and
DELIA TAPIZ
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; MARCO
CALDERILLA, in his individual capacity,
SAMANTAH DAVIS, in her individual
capacity, and DOES 1–10,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26-cv-1276-AJB-DEB
ORDER REGARDING GUARDIAN
AD LITEM
Plaintiffs initiated this civil rights complaint against Defendants County of San
Diego, Marco Calderilla, and Samantha David on February 27, 2026. (Doc. No. 1.) Upon
review of the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff A.T. is a minor whose claims are brought
by and through his mother, Delia Tapiz. (See id.) However, Plaintiffs have not filed a
motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) requires that “[t]he court must appoint a
guardian ad litem . . . to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an
action.” An individual’s capacity to sue is determined by the law of his domicile. Fed. R.
Case 3:26-cv-01276-AJB-DEB Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-1276-AJB-DEB
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
Civ. P. 17(b). Under California law, an individual under the age of eighteen is a minor.
Cal. Fam. Code § 6502. A minor may bring suit as long as a guardian conducts the
proceedings. Cal. Fam. Code § 6601. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem to
represent a minor’s interests in the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a).
The Ninth Circuit has stated, “[a]lthough the [district] court has broad discretion and
need not appoint a guardian ad litem if it determines the person is or can be otherwise
adequately protected, it is under a legal obligation to consider whether the person is
adequately protected.” 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 decision whether to appoint a guardian ad litem is “normally left to the sound
discretion of the trial court,” and the main consideration for the district court is protection
of the minor’s interest. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 804–05. In determining whether
to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the court must consider whether the minor and
the guardian have divergent interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(b)(1). “When there is a
potential conflict between a perceived parental responsibility and an obligation to assist the
court in achieving a just and speedy determination of the action, a court has the right to
select a guardian ad litem who is not a parent if that guardian would best protect the child’s
interests.” Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 49 (2007) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f the parent has an actual or potential conflict of
interest with his child, the parent has no right to control or influence the child’s litigation.”
Id.
Because the Court is under a legal obligation to consider whether Plaintiff A.T. is
adequately protected, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to, in writing, address whether A.T.
may adequately represent himself in this action. If A.T. is a minor, appointment of a
guardian is necessary to protect his interests. See Cal. Fam. Code § 6601 (“A minor may
enforce the minor’s rights by civil action or other legal proceedings in the same manner as
an adult, except that a guardian must conduct the action or proceedings.”). Thus, Plaintiffs
must move to appoint a guardian ad litem. Any motion to appoint a guardian ad litem must
Case 3:26-cv-01276-AJB-DEB Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-1276-AJB-DEB
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
address any potential conflicts of interest. See J. T. v. Antioch Unified Sch. Dist., No. 18-
CV-02992-EMC, 2018 WL 4334603 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2018) (discussing potential
conflicts of interest when a guardian ad litem asserts claims on her own behalf). Plaintiffs
must respond to this order by no later than March 27, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01276-AJB-DEB Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3