Professional Membership
Bankruptcy | Case Law | Immunity
IMMUNITY
In re Harris, 590 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 2009)
Bankruptcy court had “arising in” jurisdiction over an action against a chapter 7 trustee
alleging breach of a postpetition settlement agreement, since the claim could not exist
independently of a bankruptcy. Bankruptcy court erroneously dismissed this case under the
Barton doctrine. The case was filed against the trustee without seeking permission of the
appointing court, but was then removed to the appointing court. Thus, the Barton doctrine did not
apply. Attorneys and trustee all had derived quasi judicial immunity: 1) they were acting within
the scope of bankruptcy court authority; 2) plaintiff had notice of the claims they were making; 3)
the notice set out the nature of their claims against the estate; and 4) the bankruptcy court
approved these claims.
In re Cedar Funding, Inc., 419 B.R. 807, 823 (9th Cir. BAP 2009)
Chapter 11 trustee had quasi-judicial immunity as to allegedly defamatory statements made
in the course of performing his statutory duties, which were “inextricably intertwined with the
court’s functions in the chapter 11 process. . . .”
In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2002)
Chapter 13 trustee had absolute quasi-judicial immunity for both scheduling and noticing a
confirmation hearing.
In re Kashani, 190 B.R. 875 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995)
Trustee entitled to judicial immunity
In re Jackson, 105 B.R. 542 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)
Trustee entitled to judicial immunity
201