Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California construed Dawn Harris’s filing as a renewed motion to appoint her as guardian ad litem for Lupe C. Flores, whom the Court had previously found incompetent to pursue the action. The Court directed Harris to submit a supplemental declaration addressing conflicts of interest, her qualifications, and her discussion with opposing counsel by October 10, 2025. The Court also vacated the prior requirement that Lupe Flores file a status report every 90 days.
Holdings
- Because Dawn Harris represented that she was willing to serve as guardian ad litem and submitted documents concerning her authority and relationship with Lupe Flores, the court construed the filing as a renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad litem.
- Before deciding whether to appoint Harris as guardian ad litem, the court required a declaration under penalty of perjury addressing whether she has conflicts of interest, can competently testify and understand and protect Flores's rights, and has discussed the proposed appointment with opposing counsel.
- The court vacated the existing order requiring Lupe Flores to file a status report every 90 days, subject to resetting the requirement as necessary.
Questions Presented
- Whether Dawn Harris's notice and supporting documents should be construed as a renewed motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem for Lupe C. Flores.
- What information the proposed guardian ad litem must provide to permit the court to determine whether the appointment would adequately protect Flores's interests.
- Whether the prior order requiring Lupe Flores to file status reports every 90 days should remain in effect.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Jurgens v. Dubendorf, No. 2:14-cv-2780-KJM-DAD, 2015 WL 6163464, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)(followed)
- United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 804-05 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 n.6 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015)(followed)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…