Opinion
Civil Action 23-cv-01002-PAB-MDB
09-06-2023
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. LYNDA J. HANFORD, E.H., a minor child, and M.H., a minor child, Defendants/Counterclaimants.
MINUTE ORDER
MARITZA DOMINGUEZ BRASWELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This interpleader action is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem. (Doc. No. 19.) In the Motion, the parties seek the appointment of a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) on behalf of the unrepresented minor Defendants, E.H. and M.H. (Id.) For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED.
“The appointment of a guardian ad litem is a procedural question controlled by Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Roberts v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 256 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1958). Under Rule 17(c), “[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem-or issue another appropriate order-to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c). Here, the unrepresented minors in question are Defendants to the action with interests directly implicated in the outcome. Accordingly, the Court finds it has a duty to protect the unrepresented minors.
At the direction of the Court, the parties have submitted the curricula vitae of several candidates for a GAL appointment in this matter. (See Doc. No. 34.) The Court has reviewed the filings and selects Richard J. Banta, P.C., to represent E.H. and M.H.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Richard J. Banta, P.C. is selected to represent E.H. and M.H. as a GAL in this matter. The parties shall notify Mr. Banta of his selection and advise him to enter an appearance in the action. It is further
ORDERED that the GAL shall have the authority and duty to act on behalf of the minor children, as required by justice and as recognized in e.g., Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 693 (10th Cir. 1989); Hull By Hull v. United States, 53 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1995); Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 993 F.Supp. 225, 226-227 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff'd, 199 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 1999); and AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F.Supp.3d 1042 (E.D. Cal. 2015). It is further
ORDERED that any compensation payable to the GAL be deducted from the Death Benefit that was deposited into the Court's registry. (See Doc. No. 33.)