Arrellano et al v. Sonoma County et al

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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRANCISCO ARRELLANO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SONOMA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00187-ASK
ORDER RE MOTION TO REMOVE
PLAINTIFF AS GUARDIAN AD
LITEM
Re: Dkt. No. 88
Plaintiff Arrellano and his minor son S.A. sue Defendants for the loss of Mr. Arrellano’s
custody over S.A. Dkt. 61.1 Defendant Mistry moves to remove Mr. Arrellano as S.A.’s guardian
ad litem on the grounds that Mr. Arrellano has lost all custody of S.A. and is prohibited from
contacting his son. Dkt. 88. The Court GRANTS Defendant Mistry’s motion because the no-
contact order severely undermines Mr. Arrellano’s ability to represent S.A.’s interests.
I. DISCUSSION
Federal courts may issue appropriate orders “to protect a minor or incompetent person who
is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). The Court has a “duty to ensure that the
guardian ad litem will represent the best interests” of a minor. Rosalia v. City of Hayward, 2022
WL 420227, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022). Generally, a parent who is also a party to the suit is
presumed to be a suitable guardian ad litem. Brown v. Alexander, 2015 WL 7350183, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). But “[w]hen a parent has an actual or potential conflict of interest with his
child,” that parent lacks any right “to control or influence the child’s litigation.” Id. (cleaned up).
1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
Case 4:23-cv-00187-ASK Document 94 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
Northern District of California
Since being appointed as S.A.’s guardian ad litem, Mr. Arrellano has lost legal and
physical custody of his son. Dkt. 88-3 at 6. He has also been prohibited from contacting S.A. Id. at
11. The no-contact order significantly undermines Mr. Arrellano’s ability to represent S.A.’s
interests in this litigation and thus constitutes good cause to remove Mr. Arrellano as S.A.’s
guardian ad litem. See Brown, 2015 WL 7350183, at *2. Accordingly, Defendant Mistry’s motion
is GRANTED.
II. CONCLUSION
Mr. Arrellano is no longer the guardian ad litem in this matter. Within 14 days of this
order, each party must submit a list of three suitable guardians, along with their contact
information, their agreement to serve, and a brief explanation of why they would be suitable for
appointment as guardian ad litem. See Bhatia v. Corrigan, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
May 16, 2007).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2026
AJAY KRISHNAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:23-cv-00187-ASK Document 94 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 2