Stahl v. Chen
- 5:25-cv-08679
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Justin Stahl v. Cynthia Chen, et al., the court denied Stahl’s motion to reconsider an order about representing his minor children.
Justin Stahl and his minor children, W.S. and C.S.; the order requires a new motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for the children.
What happened
In Justin Stahl v. Cynthia Chen, et al., Justin Stahl, representing himself, asked to represent his minor children, W.S. and C.S., as their guardian ad litem. The court had previously denied that request without prejudice because their mother had sole legal custody under a state family-court order and had not consented.
Stahl asked the court to reconsider, arguing that it had overlooked facts showing the mother had a conflict of interest and legal arguments that her consent was unnecessary. The court rejected those arguments, finding no change in the facts or law warranting reconsideration and no clear legal error.
The court denied the reconsideration motion and required Stahl to file a new motion to appoint a guardian ad litem within 30 days, by January 15, 2026. The judge is not clearly identified in the provided opinion text; the signature is only partially legible.
The detailed version
- Stahl v. Chen · No. 5:25-cv-08679
- Dec. 16, 2025
Background
Justin Stahl, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint for himself and as guardian ad litem for his minor children, W.S. and C.S. A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to represent a minor’s interests in litigation. Stahl separately moved to be appointed guardian ad litem for the children.
The court denied that appointment request without prejudice on November 21, 2025. The court explained that Stahl could not be approved without the children’s mother’s consent because a state family court had granted the mother sole legal custody. Stahl then moved for reconsideration of that order.
Reconsideration standard
The court explained that it may reconsider an interlocutory order—an order issued before final judgment—but that reconsideration motions are disfavored. Under the stated standard, reconsideration generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, an intervening change in controlling law, a material difference in facts or law that could not previously have been discovered with reasonable diligence, new material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.
Arguments and ruling
Stahl argued that the court had failed to consider facts showing that the children’s mother had an actual conflict of interest. He also argued that the court had failed to consider legal arguments establishing that her consent could not be required under the circumstances.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It found no change in the law or facts warranting Stahl’s appointment as guardian ad litem and stated that it had not committed clear legal error. The court concluded that Stahl’s declaration did not establish an actual conflict of interest. His belief that the mother’s interests were directly adverse to the children’s claims did not, by itself, establish that a conflict existed. The court also noted that the mother apparently had not received notice or an opportunity to respond with her position.
Disposition
The court ordered that Stahl’s motion for reconsideration is denied. It further ordered that someone must be appointed to represent the children’s interests going forward and required Stahl to submit a new guardian ad litem motion within 30 days of the order, on or before January 15, 2026.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.