Doctrine Of Quasi-Judicial Immunity And The Litigation Privilege Preclude Man From Suing The Guardian Ad Litem Appointed By The Court During His Divorce Proceeding.

After a husband’s lawyer informed the judge on the day trial was to begin that his client had checked himself into a hospital in Massachusetts for severe depression, the court refused to grant a continuance without evidence of the man’s condition. The next day the lawyer presented a letter from the man’s physician, and the judge, convinced the man could not act on his own behalf, appointed a guardian ad litem. Eventually all the marital issues were resolved and the family law court awarded fees to the guardian ad litem. At the time the fees were awarded, the man was recovered. The parties had been given ten days to object to the order of fees but there was no objection. The man thereafter brought a civil action against his former guardian ad litem for negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The gravamen of his complaint was that the guardian’s actions allegedly resulted in the loss of custody of his children as well as financial losses. The trial court sustained the guardian’s demurrer without leave to amend. Concluding the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity and the litigation privilege precluded the man’s civil action, the appellate court affirmed. (McClintock v. West  (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; September 9, 2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 540.)