Bouri v. Stonebrae Homeowners Association

Background

The plaintiffs petitioned for appointment of Luay Bouri as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Bandali Bouri. A guardian ad litem is a person appointed by a court to protect the interests of a minor or an incompetent person in a lawsuit. The petition was filed on October 14, 2024. After requesting additional briefing and evidence, the court held a hearing.

The supporting materials included declarations from Luay Bouri, Samer Bouri, and Tina Bouri; a letter from Bandali’s nurse practitioner describing his Down syndrome and communicative and cognitive impairments; and a 2008 San Mateo County Health document concerning access to Bandali’s medical information. Tina stated that Bandali could not cook, live independently, or make safe decisions without adult supervision and did not understand the concept of legal proceedings.

At the hearing, Luay testified that Bandali lived in a boarding house in Foster City, that Luay visited him regularly, and that Luay was the representative payee for Bandali’s Social Security Administration payments. Luay also testified that Bandali had recently undergone hip replacement surgery and struggled with dementia. Tina described her previous daily care of Bandali. Bandali and Samer attended the hearing, and the court observed Bandali throughout the proceeding. Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that Bandali had no appointed conservator or general guardian.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) requires the court to appoint a guardian ad litem, or issue another appropriate order, to protect an unrepresented minor or incompetent person. The court explained that, under California law, a person is incompetent for this purpose if he lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding or cannot assist counsel in preparing the case. The finding must be supported by more than a 50 percent showing, known as a preponderance of the evidence.

Ruling

The court granted the petition. It found that the written and oral testimony from Bandali’s close family members, together with the medical documentation, showed that Bandali lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings. The court also found that Luay was an appropriate person to protect Bandali’s interests because Luay had long supported Bandali in managing his financial and health affairs.

Pursuant to Rule 17(c)(2), the court appointed Luay Bouri as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Bandali Bouri in this action. The order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the lawsuit.