Lain v. Pleasanton Unified School District

Background

Joseph Lain sued the Pleasanton Unified School District, the Contra Costa County Office of Education, and related individual defendants on his own behalf and on behalf of his disabled minor daughter, A.L. The complaint alleged retaliation for exercising due-process rights to advocate for A.L. and denial of A.L.’s access to education under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and California Education Code § 56046. Joseph Lain moved ex parte to be appointed guardian ad litem for A.L.

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 a minor who is unrepresented in an action. Under California law, a person under eighteen is a minor, and a parent may serve as guardian ad litem if the parent does not have an adverse interest. Courts have discretion to appoint someone other than a parent when a conflict of interest exists, but appointment of a parent is generally appropriate when the parent and child have the same interests.

Application and ruling

The court found that A.L. was under eighteen and therefore was a minor under California law. It also found no conflict between Joseph Lain’s interests and A.L.’s interests in the claims. The court granted the motion and appointed Joseph Lain as guardian ad litem for A.L.