Head v. Disttech, Inc, C16-1727 RSM. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20171130j75
Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEMS RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litems for the Purpose of Evaluating Settlement. Dkt. #69. The Court finds that, under LCR 17(c), it has authority to appoint independent guardian ad litems for minors in this case for the purposes of settlement. Defendants object to the guardians proposed by Plaintiff, arguing that they are "professionally aligne
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEMS RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litems for the Purpose of Evaluating Settlement. Dkt. #69. The Court finds that, under LCR 17(c), it has authority to appoint independent guardian ad litems for minors in this case for the purposes of settlement. Defendants object to the guardians proposed by Plaintiff, arguing that they are "professionally aligned..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEMS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litems for the Purpose of Evaluating Settlement. Dkt. #69. The Court finds that, under LCR 17(c), it has authority to appoint independent guardian ad litems for minors in this case for the purposes of settlement. Defendants object to the guardians proposed by Plaintiff, arguing that they are "professionally aligned with Plaintiff's counsel." Dkt. #70 at 1. Plaintiff disagrees with this assertion, but has suggested several other attorneys for the Court to consider, presumably attorneys who are not professionally aligned with Plaintiff's counsel.
The Court believes this issue can best be resolved by cooperation between the parties and will order the parties to refile this motion as a stipulated motion as soon as possible, listing agreed upon, independent guardian ad litems for the Court's consideration. Counsel is directed to obtain the consent of proposed guardian ad litems before filing.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litems for the Purpose of Evaluating Settlement, Dkt. #69, is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to refile this Motion as a stipulated motion, noted for same-day consideration, no later than December 6, 2017.
Source: Leagle
