Villareal v. City Of San Jose
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:22-cv-09152
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Villareal v. City of San Jose, Judge DeMarchi found defendant Matthew Dominguez competent and scheduled further case management.
Defendant Matthew Dominguez was found competent to continue participating in the case, and no guardian ad litem was appointed. The parties must address the remaining discovery and case schedule, and the City of San Jose is responsible for the independent expert’s invoice under the court’s prior order.
What happened
Villareal v. City of San Jose involved a court inquiry into whether defendant Matthew Dominguez was able to understand the case and help his lawyers. The inquiry followed state-court competency proceedings and the court’s appointment of an independent medical expert.
The parties jointly told the court that they did not object to the expert’s report and would not submit anything else on competency. The court decided the issue from the written record without another hearing.
Judge DeMarchi found that Mr. Dominguez was competent and said no guardian or other protective order was needed. The court also set a further case management conference for September 16, 2025, and directed the parties to submit a proposed schedule.
The detailed version
- Villareal v. City Of San Jose · No. 5:22-cv-09152
- Virginia Demarchi
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
The action had been stayed for several months while state-court competency proceedings concerning defendant Matthew Dominguez were completed. The state court later found Mr. Dominguez competent to proceed in criminal matters. Because this court had identified a substantial question about his competency, it conducted an inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c).
The court appointed John R. Chamberlain, M.D., as an independent expert to help determine Mr. Dominguez’s competency under California law. Dr. Chamberlain submitted a written report on August 7, 2025. On August 20, 2025, the parties filed a joint statement saying that no party challenged or objected to the report for purposes of deciding competency and that they would submit the issue without further information.
Competency determination
Rule 17(b) provides that an individual’s capacity to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the individual’s domicile. The court stated that California law applies here. Under the standard described by the court, a person is incompetent if the person cannot understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding or cannot assist counsel in preparing the case.
Based on Dr. Chamberlain’s report and the parties’ joint statement, the court found no basis to conclude that Mr. Dominguez lacked the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding. The court therefore concluded that Mr. Dominguez is competent and that no further action under Rule 17(c), including appointing a guardian ad litem, was necessary.
Disposition and next steps
The court found the competency issue suitable for decision on the submitted record, without further briefing or a hearing. Unless a party objected by August 29, 2025, the court would deem Dr. Chamberlain’s work complete and direct him to prepare an invoice. Under the court’s earlier order, the City of San Jose would be responsible for paying that invoice.
The court set a further case management conference for September 16, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. by videoconference. The parties were ordered to file a joint case management statement by September 9, 2025, addressing further proceedings and a proposed schedule, including Mr. Dominguez’s deposition, remaining expert-related deadlines, the final pretrial conference, and trial.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.