1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CRISTINA RAMIREZ FONUA, et al., 10 Case No. 21-cv-03644-RS Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER REQUESTING 12 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING CITY OF HAYWARD, et al., REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF 13 GUARDIAN AD LITEM Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiffs seek to substitute as guardian ad litem minor child B.H.R.’s mother, Kendra 16 Garcia, for B.H.R.’s current guardian ad litem and grandmother, Cristina Ramirez Fonua. 17 Plaintiffs point out Garcia is B.H.R.’s current legal guardian and assert she has no conflicting 18 interests with B.H.R. In their previous motion requesting Fonua’s appointment as guardian ad 19 litem in 2021, Plaintiffs represented “there was a Child Protective Services [CPS] proceeding to 20 remove B.H.R. from [Garcia’s] custody in early 2020” and they were “unable to contact” Garcia. 21 Dkt. 25, at 2.1 In their current motion, Plaintiffs offer no explanation regarding how this removal 22 proceeding by CPS, or their previous inability to locate Garcia, might bear on whether Garcia is a 23 suitable guardian ad litem for B.H.R. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) entrusts district courts with the responsibility to 25 safeguard the interests of minor litigants. See, e.g., Konen v. Caldeira, No. 22-cv-5195, 2023 WL 26 4595143, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2023) (citing Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th 27 1 Cir. 2011)). The district court, therefore, must ensure a guardian ad litem will represent the minor 2 child’s best interests. Brown v. Alexander, No. 13-cv-1451, 2015 WL 7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 3 || Nov. 20, 2015) (citing Williams v. Sup. Ct., 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)). A 4 || parent may not control or influence a minor child’s litigation where they have an actual or 5 potential conflict of interest with the minor child. Williams, 147 Cal. App. at 50. 6 In order to ensure no conflict of interest exists between Garcia and B.H.R., Plaintiffs are 7 directed to provide supplemental briefing (if appropriate, under seal) by November 3, 2023, 8 || explaining (1) whether CPS removed B.H.R. from Garcia’s custody in 2020, and, if so, why CPS 9 || took this action, (2) the circumstances of Plaintiffs’ inability to locate Garcia in 2021, and (3) why 10 Garcia should be appointed guardian ad litem, assuming B.H.R. was removed from her custody in 11 2020, notwithstanding this removal. Defendants are also invited (but not required) to file briefing 12 || on whether Garcia would be a suitable guardian ad litem for B.H.R. by November 3, 2023.

|) 1, ISSO ORDERED.

a 16 Dated: October 23, 2023

8 RICHARD SEEBORG _ Chief United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 98 ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING . CASE No. 21-cv-03644-RS