Alexander v. The City of Brisbane Inc.
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-04563
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Alexander v. City of Brisbane, Judge Orrick denied Olga Alexander’s guardian request without prejudice and extended briefing on defendants’ dismissal motion.
Olga Alexander, her minor twins T.A. and V.A., the City of Brisbane, the four Brisbane police officers, Timothy Alexander, and the lawyers involved in the case.
What happened
In Alexander v. The City of Brisbane Inc., Olga Alexander sued the City of Brisbane, four Brisbane police officers, and Timothy Alexander on behalf of herself and her minor twins, T.A. and V.A. She was representing herself, while the twins had obtained a lawyer.
Because a person representing herself cannot represent others, the court denied Alexander’s request to become the twins’ guardian ad litem without prejudice. The court directed the twins’ lawyer to file a request to appoint a guardian by March 5, 2021. The court also extended the deadlines for responding to and replying to the Brisbane defendants’ motion to dismiss and reset the hearing for April 16, 2021.
Judge William Orrick issued this case-management order on February 17, 2021. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. The City of Brisbane Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-04563
- William Orrick
- Feb. 17, 2021
Background
Olga Alexander brought the case on behalf of herself and her minor twins, T.A. and V.A., against the City of Brisbane, four Brisbane police officers, and Timothy Alexander. Alexander was proceeding without a lawyer. She had previously asked to be appointed as the twins’ guardian ad litem—a person appointed to protect a minor’s interests in a lawsuit.
The court had previously explained that a person representing herself generally cannot represent other people, including minor children. Alexander later retained counsel for T.A. and V.A., but she remained unrepresented herself. The court also noted a potential conflict between Alexander’s interests and those of the twins because she was suing their father, who apparently shared partial physical custody of them.
Rulings
The court denied Alexander’s pending application to be appointed guardian ad litem without prejudice. Because no guardian ad litem had yet been appointed, the court directed counsel for T.A. and V.A. to file a motion seeking appointment of a guardian ad litem by March 5, 2021.
The court also granted Alexander’s unopposed request for more time to respond to the Brisbane defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. It extended the defendants’ deadline for filing their reply as well. Alexander’s response was due March 24, 2021; the defendants’ reply was due April 7, 2021; and the hearing was reset for April 16, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This was a case-management order. It did not decide the Brisbane defendants’ motion to dismiss or the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.