Joni M. Roth v. AIG, et al.

Summary

The United States Magistrate Judge recommends that Joni M. Roth be found legally incompetent to prosecute her diversity action pro se and that Kelli Grande be appointed as her guardian ad litem. The document also recommends a 60-day stay of proceedings on the merits, including a pending motion for summary judgment, and warns that the claims may be dismissed for failure to prosecute if counsel does not appear.

Holdings

1. A party who lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding or who cannot assist counsel in preparing the case is incompetent under the applicable competency standard. Based on the competency hearing and medical information, Roth was legally incompetent to prosecute the action pro se.
2. The court should appoint Kelli Grande as guardian ad litem for Roth for purposes of the action because Roth was incompetent to proceed pro se and Grande was suitable to protect Roth's interests.
3. Appointment as guardian ad litem does not give a non-attorney the right to represent the incompetent party pro se or extend the party's personal right to proceed without counsel.
4. The court should stay further proceedings on the merits, including the pending motion for summary judgment, for 60 days after any order adopting the recommendations.
5. Grande's request for reconsideration and compliance with Rule 17(c) was disregarded because it was not properly before the magistrate judge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was legally incompetent to prosecute her civil claims without counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) and applicable California competency standards.
2. Whether Kelli Grande should be appointed guardian ad litem for plaintiff.
3. Whether proceedings on the merits, including the pending motion for summary judgment, should be stayed for 60 days to protect plaintiff's interests.
4. Whether a non-attorney guardian ad litem may personally exercise plaintiff's right to proceed pro se.
5. Whether Grande's request for reconsideration and compliance with Rule 17(c) was properly before the magistrate judge.

Disposition

other