J.M. v. Miller Creek School District

Background

S.M.L. filed an amended complaint on behalf of her minor son, J.M. The complaint sought a declaration concerning California Education Code section 56366, challenged two adverse administrative decisions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and asserted negligence and breach-of-contract claims against defendants.

At the parties’ request, the court had separated the case so that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act appeal would be handled first. S.M.L. later moved to substitute herself as J.M.’s guardian ad litem. A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to protect and represent a minor’s interests in litigation. The Miller Creek School District and Anova Education and Behavior Consultation, Inc., opposed the motion.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that the complaint did not clearly state whether S.M.L. was suing in her own capacity based on her parental rights, asserting only J.M.’s rights, or doing both. The court declined to make assumptions about that issue.

If S.M.L. was asserting only J.M.’s rights, the court explained that she should have requested appointment as J.M.’s guardian ad litem when the case began. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, a minor may participate in litigation through a next friend or guardian ad litem, and the court must appoint a guardian ad litem or issue another appropriate order to protect an unrepresented minor.

The court required S.M.L. to file a motion supported by admissible evidence showing that it was appropriate for her to act as J.M.’s guardian ad litem up to that point. If R.M. sought to replace S.M.L. as guardian ad litem, the plaintiff could file a separate substitution motion. Each motion had to address whether the proposed guardian was dedicated to J.M.’s best interests and whether a conflict of interest existed.

The court also required the plaintiff to address the District’s argument that a guardian ad litem in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act appeal must hold the minor’s educational rights. If the plaintiff agreed with that argument, she had to provide evidence concerning the status of J.M.’s educational rights since October 17, 2022.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice S.M.L.’s motion to substitute herself as J.M.’s guardian ad litem. It ordered the plaintiff to file the required appointment materials by June 20, 2023, and permitted a new motion to substitute R.M. by the same deadline. The court vacated the June 8 hearing on the partial summary-judgment motion involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act claims, the case-management conference, and the July 13 hearing on the guardian-ad-litem motion. The court did not decide the underlying claims or the appeal of the administrative decisions.