QUESTION: I am a receiver appointed by a court in California in a contentious case. One of creditors has threatened to sue me in Nevada were he is located. How can this creditor sue me? I am a receiver appointed by the Court!
ANSWER: Welcome to the gritty world of receiverships. While you are a court appointed receiver, and may personally have quasi-judicial immunity, you can still be sued. Your question is unclear as to why the creditor wants to sue you and whether he intends to sue you in your official capacity as receiver or individually. Generally, receivers do have quasi-judicial immunity for any actions brought against them in their individual capacity, unless their activities exceeded the scope of their order of appointment (the distinction between personal liability and official liability will not be discussed here). Assuming the creditor wants to sue you in your official capacity, the creditor needs to first obtain permission to do so from the court which appointed you. McCarthy v. Poulsen, 173 Cal. App. 3rd 1212, 1219 (1985); Ostrowski v. Miller, 226 Cal App. 2d 79, 83 (1964). C.C.P. §568 used to provide that a receiver cannot be sued without the permission of the receivership court. The statute was amended in 1982 and the express prohibition was deleted. However, the courts have subsequently held that this deletion did not affect the rule requiring court permission to sue a receiver. Vitug v. Griffin, 214 Cal. App. 3rd 488, 493 (1989). It has been repeatedly stated that the purpose of the rule is to promote judicial economy by prohibiting the receiver and the receivership estate from a multiplicity of lawsuits and because, in most cases, claimants can obtain appropriate relief within the receivership case. If you are sued without permission being obtained, you need to raise that at the first opportunity, either by demurrer or motion to dismiss; otherwise this requirement can be deemed waived. Vitug supra. A creditor cannot evade the permission requirement by suing outside the receivership court. Merryweather v. U.S., 12 F. 2d 407, 408 (9th Cir. 1926) [“The court which holds the estate and administers must decide whether it will determine for itself all claims against the receiver, or will permit suits to be brought and determined in other courts. And as said by Justice Gray in Porter v. Sabin, supra. * * * No suit, unless authorized by statute, can be brought against the receiver without the permission of the court which appointed him.”]. Some courts require an evidentiary showing that the claims have merit before permission will be granted. See, for example, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. J.D.L. Assoc., 866 F. Supp. 76 (D. Conn. 1994). Other courts, however, merely require allegations. Although you can never stop someone from suing you, you may be able to convince the court that any action brought against you should be litigated in the receivership court, before the judge who appointed you, who is most familiar with the receivership proceeding.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Senior Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership, and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014