ORDER

(Docket No. 45)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is a motion that the mothers of K.C., A.S., and K.C. be appointed their guardians ad litem pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 45. No response has been filed, and the deadline to do so has now passed. See Local Rule 7-2. Nonetheless, the Court is not persuaded based on the submission made that the motion should be granted. Most significantly, the proposed guardians ad litem are the mothers of the children, and are already representing them in this case. See Docket No. 1. Other courts have found it unnecessary to appoint a mother as her child's guardian ad litem. See, e.g., Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Remington, 2013 WL 3070629, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) (citing Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001); Matter of Chi., Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 788 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986); and Croce v. Bromley Corp., 623 F.2d 1084, 1093 (5th Cir. 1980)). That such appointment is not necessary is consistent with the fact that the minors' mothers initiated this case in late 2016, and litigated it for roughly a year before seeking appointment as guardians ad litem.1

In short, the motion does not explain why the relief sought is necessary, and is therefore DENIED without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiffs truly believe appointments as guardians ad litem is required, in addition to addressing the generally applicable standards any renewed motion shall also explain why Plaintiffs believe such appointment to be necessary and why they litigated this case for roughly a year before seeking that appointment. Any such renewed motion shall be filed by January 25, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.