S.M. v. The City of New York

Background

S.M., a minor, sued the City of New York and Good Shepherd Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, parallel New York laws, and federal constitutional provisions. The claims concern S.M.’s court-ordered placement at Euphrasian Residence, a lockdown facility owned by Good Shepherd and used under a contract with the City to house foster children. The complaint alleges that the placement caused serious and lasting physical and psychological injuries.

Alison King brought the case for S.M. as her “next friend.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), a minor without an adequate representative may sue through a next friend or a court-appointed guardian ad litem. S.M.’s father, I.M., remained her formal legal guardian after New York authorities removed her from his physical custody and placed her in foster care. Before the case began, attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis asked I.M. whether he would serve as next friend, but he declined. They then located King, who was practicing at Arnold & Porter at the time, and named her as S.M.’s next friend.

By 2022, S.M. had left Good Shepherd’s custody and was living with I.M. I.M. testified that he would be willing to serve as next friend but continued to prefer King. King had also become employed by Kirkland, the firm litigating the case on a pro bono basis. Good Shepherd argued that these developments meant King lacked standing, that I.M. should serve instead, and that no formal court appointment had authorized King’s role.

Legal standard and analysis

The court treated the dispute as one about King’s authority to serve as next friend under Rule 17(c), not about S.M.’s general capacity to sue. Relying principally on Second Circuit precedent, the court explained that the rule gives federal courts broad discretion to allow someone other than a child’s legal guardian to represent the child when the guardian is unable, unwilling, refuses to act, or has interests that conflict with the child’s interests.

The court held that I.M. was not an adequate representative when the lawsuit began. Although he remained S.M.’s formal legal guardian, he had declined to represent her because of concerns about his availability and being drawn into family-court proceedings. The court also reasoned that his status as a guardian did not control because S.M. had been removed from his custody and placed in the State’s foster-care system. The court rejected Good Shepherd’s argument that King needed a prior relationship with S.M. or a formal appointment. It found that a prior relationship is not required and that Rule 17(c) does not impose a formal appointment requirement for a next friend.

The court also found that King could continue in that role after S.M. returned to live with I.M. S.M. and I.M. both expressed a preference for King. The court found plausible concerns that I.M. could have a conflict because he was involved in the circumstances leading to S.M.’s confinement and might be called as a fact witness. The court emphasized that there was no indication of bad faith by I.M., but concluded that the alleged conflict supported keeping King as next friend.

The court separately rejected Good Shepherd’s claim that King’s employment at Kirkland created a conflict. King was not acting as S.M.’s next friend as a Kirkland attorney and had no role in the case other than serving as next friend. Her compensation was not affected by the case, and she would not receive attorney’s fees if any were awarded. Kirkland represented that any fees paid to the firm would have nothing to do with King and would be donated to a charitable cause consistent with the firm’s pro bono practice.

Finally, the court found that allowing King to remain served S.M.’s best interests. S.M. and I.M. preferred that arrangement, S.M. trusted King’s legal guidance, and changing representatives could cause costs, delay, and a possible reduction in the quality of representation. The court also noted that judicial review of any settlement could address concerns about disloyalty.

Disposition

The court denied Good Shepherd Services’ motion for judgment under Rule 12(c) and to dismiss for lack of standing. The court granted Plaintiff’s letter motion for an extension of time to complete discovery. It directed counsel to file a joint status letter proposing further proceedings, including discovery, within 21 days after the order was filed. The opinion does not state that either motion was granted or denied with or without prejudice.