(SS) Overall v. Commissioner of Social Security

[8] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [9] EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [11] KRISTAL B. OVERALL, on behalf of minor Case No.: 1:25-cv-00727-HBK 12 R.G.O., 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO 14 v. APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM 15 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. No. 2) 16 Defendant. [19] 20 On June 13, 2025, Kristal B. Overall initiated this action on behalf of minor Plaintiff 21 R.G.O., seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 22 denying an application for supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. 23 (Doc. No. 1). On the same day, Kristal B. Overall, through counsel, filed a Petition for 24 Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem. (Doc. No. 2, “Petition”). Petitioner seeks appointment of 25 Kristal B. Overall as guardian ad litem for R.G.O. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 26 grants the Petition. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 provides for a representative of a minor or an 28 incompetent person to sue or defend on a minor or an incompetent’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 17(c). Similarly, this Court’s Local Rule 202(a) in pertinent part, states: 2 Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor ... the attorney representing the minor or 3 incompetent person shall present ... a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or ... a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such [4] appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or 5 incompetent person. 6 Appointment of a guardian ad litem is not a mere formality because the guardian “is authorized 7 to act on behalf of his ward and may make all appropriate decisions in the course of specific 8 litigation.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cty., State 9 of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986). A “guardian ad litem need not possess any special 10 qualifications,” but must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf 11 he seeks to litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F.Supp.3d 1042, 1053-54 (E.D. Cal. 12 2015) (citations omitted). 13 “[W]hen a parent brings an action on behalf of a child, and it is evident that the interests 14 of each are the same, no need exists for someone other than the parent to represent the child’s 15 interests under Rule 17(c).” H.D.A. v. County of Stanislaus, 2022 WL 992990 , at *1 (E.D. Cal. 16 Apr. 1, 2022) (quoting Gonzalez v. Reno, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1185 (S.D. Fla.), aff’d, 212 F.3d 17 1338 (11th Cir. 2000)). “While a parent is generally appointed as a guardian ad litem, there are 18 situations where the best interests of the minor and the interests of the parent conflict. Therefore, 19 a parent is not entitled as a matter of right to act as guardian ad litem for a child.” Id. (citing 20 Anthem Life Ins. Co. v. Olguin, 2007 WL 1390672 , at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2007)). 21 The Court has considered the application of Kristal B. Overall for appointment as 22 guardian ad litem for R.G.O., who is a minor, and finds no apparent conflict that would preclude 23 her from serving as guardian ad litem. Kristal B. Overall is not a party to the instant action. (See 24 generally Doc. No. 1). She is the mother of R.G.O.; and R.G.O. is in her custody. (Doc No. 2 at 25 2 ⁋ 2). The Court does not find any apparent conflict of interest or any other factors that 26 demonstrate such appointment is not in the best interests of the minor Plaintiff. 27 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 28 1. The Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED. 1 2. Kristal B. Overall is appointed as guardian ad litem for R.G.O. and is authorized to 2 prosecute this action on their behalf. [4] || Dated: _June 18, 2025 Wiha Th fares Zaki HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE