Hanford v. E.H. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell
Civil Action No. 23–cv–01002–PAB–MDB
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
LYNDA J. HANFORD,
E.H., a minor child, and
M.H., a minor child,
Defendants/Counterclaimants.
MINUTE ORDER
This interpleader action is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad
Litem. (Doc. No. 19.) In the Motion, the parties seek the appointment of a guardian ad litem
(“GAL”) on behalf of the unrepresented minor Defendants, E.H. and M.H. (Id.) For the reasons
set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED.
“The appointment of a guardian ad litem is a procedural question controlled by Rule
17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Roberts v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 256 F.2d 35 (5th
Cir. 1958). Under Rule 17(c), “[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another
appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). Here, the unrepresented minors in question are Defendants to the action
with interests directly implicated in the outcome. Accordingly, the Court finds it has a duty to
protect the unrepresented minors.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01002-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 09/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
At the direction of the Court, the parties have submitted the curricula vitae of several
candidates for a GAL appointment in this matter. (See Doc. No. 34.) The Court has reviewed the
filings and selects Richard J. Banta, P.C., to represent E.H. and M.H.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. No. 19) is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Richard J. Banta, P.C. is selected to represent E.H. and M.H. as a
GAL in this matter. The parties shall notify Mr. Banta of his selection and advise him to enter an
appearance in the action. It is further
ORDERED that the GAL shall have the authority and duty to act on behalf of the minor
children, as required by justice and as recognized in e.g., Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 693
(10th Cir. 1989); Hull By Hull v. United States, 53 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1995); Neilson v.
Colgate-Palmolive Co., 993 F. Supp. 225, 226-227 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff’d, 199 F.3d 642 (2d Cir.
1999); and AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (E.D. Cal. 2015). It is further
ORDERED that any compensation payable to the GAL be deducted from the Death
Benefit that was deposited into the Court’s registry. (See Doc. No. 33.)
Dated this 6th day of September, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
Maritza Dominguez Braswell
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:23-cv-01002-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 09/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2