D.M. v. Minnesota State High School League
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:18-cv-02140
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In D.M. v. Minnesota State High School League, Judge Rau granted motions allowing the minors’ parents to represent them as next friends.
The order affects minor plaintiffs D.M. and Z.G. and permits their parents and legal guardians, Bao Xiong and Joel Greenwald, respectively, to represent them as next friends.
What happened
D.M. and Z.G., both minors, asked the court to recognize their parents as next friends—adults who may represent minors in a lawsuit. The parents were identified as the children’s legal guardians.
No party opposed the motions or claimed that either parent’s interests conflicted with the child’s interests. The court noted that the parents had already been treated as the children’s next friends during earlier proceedings.
The court granted both motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. The order, signed by Judge Steven E. Rau, addressed only the parents’ ability to represent the minors and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- D.M. v. Minnesota State High School League · No. 0:18-cv-02140
- Nancy Brasel
- Mar. 27, 2019
Background
D.M. and Z.G. are minors who brought this case through their parents. D.M.’s parent and legal guardian is Bao Xiong; Z.G.’s parent and legal guardian is Joel Greenwald. Each plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to appoint or recognize that parent as the child’s “next friend,” meaning a person who may bring or conduct a lawsuit for a minor.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A) allows a general guardian to sue on behalf of a minor. The court found that it was uncontested that Xiong and Greenwald were the respective children’s guardians. The court also noted that the parties and courts had treated them as next friends throughout the earlier litigation. No party opposed the motions, and no party asserted that either parent had interests conflicting with those of the child.
Ruling
The court granted D.M.’s motion and granted Z.G.’s motion. The order concerned only proper representation of the minor plaintiffs; it did not resolve the underlying claims against the Minnesota State High School League or the other defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.