Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Court-Appointed Receiver Entitled to Absolute Judicial Immunity — Duties “Functionally Comparable to Those of Judges”

From Ramirez v. Pasternak, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 443 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2011):

*** Pasternak was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions undertaken in his capacity as receiver that were "functionally comparable to those of judges." Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) ("A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.'") (citation omitted); New Alaska Dev., 869 F.2d at 1303-04 & n.6 (concluding that state court-appointed receiver was entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly mismanaging company assets).

Share this article:


Recent Posts