Semaan v. Mosier

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting an anti-SLAPP motion against claims that a court-appointed receiver breached fiduciary duties by delaying liquidation of investment accounts. The court held that the claims arose from protected petitioning activity and that the receiver was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions made in that role. The court limited that immunity to discretionary conduct and declined to decide whether Government Code section 820.2 also applied.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs' claims arose from constitutionally protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(e)(4) because they were based on the receiver's decisions and conduct in furtherance of the criminal prosecution and management of assets under the court's appointment.
2. A court-appointed receiver is protected by quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions performed in the receiver's capacity as an arm of the court.
3. Quasi-judicial immunity for a court-appointed receiver extends to discretionary, nonministerial acts and decisions, but not to nondiscretionary ministerial acts, intentional misconduct outside the receiver's quasi-judicial capacity, self-dealing, or acts taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.
4. The receiver's decision about when it was practicable to liquidate the investment accounts was discretionary and therefore protected by quasi-judicial immunity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs' claims arose from activity protected under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(e)(4).
2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated the minimal merit necessary to survive the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis.
3. Whether a court-appointed receiver is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions made in the receiver's official capacity.
4. Whether the receiver's decision regarding when liquidation was practicable was discretionary rather than ministerial.

Disposition

affirmed