Hubbard v. Google LLC
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:19-cv-07016
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hubbard v. Google LLC, Judge Freeman appointed guardians ad litem for named minors after finding the applicants suitable and conflict-free.
The named minor plaintiffs and the adults appointed to represent their interests in the lawsuit are directly affected. The order also concerns the plaintiffs’ proposed class action.
What happened
Hubbard v. Google LLC is a class action involving minors who sued Google, YouTube, and other defendants. The plaintiffs asked the court to appoint adults to protect the minors’ interests in the case.
The court found that each proposed guardian had a strong interest in the child’s welfare, was willing and able to pursue the case, had no conflict of interest, and was acting in good faith. It appointed Nichole Hubbard, Cara Jones, Justin Efros, Renee Gilmore, Jay Goodwin, and Bobbi Dishman for the specified minors.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the appointments under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires courts to protect minors during litigation.
The detailed version
- Hubbard v. Google LLC · No. 5:19-cv-07016
- Susan Van Keulen
- Feb. 9, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs filed an omnibus application asking the court to appoint guardians ad litem for the minor plaintiffs. A guardian ad litem is an adult appointed to protect a minor’s interests in a lawsuit. The case is identified as a class action and names Google LLC, YouTube LLC, and other defendants.
Legal standard
The court relied on Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires a court to take appropriate measures to protect a minor during litigation, including appointing a guardian ad litem when the minor does not have a properly appointed representative. The court stated that appointment is generally within the trial court’s discretion and that the main consideration is the minor’s best interests. When there is no conflict of interest, the appointment is usually made based on an application without advance notice to the opposing parties.
Ruling
The court found that the requested appointments were appropriate. It determined that the applicants had strong interests in their children’s welfare, were willing and able to pursue the action on the children’s behalf, had no conflicts of interest, and were acting in good faith.
The court appointed:
- Nichole Hubbard for C.H.; - Cara Jones for E.J., N.J., A.J., and L.J.; - Justin Efros for J.A.E. and J.R.E.; - Renee Gilmore for M.W.; - Jay Goodwin for A.G.; and - Bobbi Dishman for C.D.
The court ordered that these appointments be made.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.