the district court out of san antonio texas it's unfair accounting i'm here to advocate this morning that we have to state that it's an important governmental interest to make sure that our receivers when they're appointed  by our courts and are going around the land in this case it looks like around the country i mean in the around the world maybe you have that they be afforded the community that they deserve under  him should be applied here now the district judge seemed to think that the standard of official immunity was the standard contained and twenty two u s c nine hundred eighty three cases you agree with that i need to actually no and nor did mr weber allege any kind of eleventh amendment immunity as being an arm of the state or anything such as that so now we're dealing with a state law cause of action period yes and two  let me tell you by may your honors what i think the current and appropriate stay long as and then will kind of go from there obviously the the federal court in nevada was supposed to have recognized that a law and not only ten says that while the majority attempts to say that they've adopted the restatement they're not really sure how long how much it's different from we're just going to apply our laws right here but setting that aside i have an argument the four factors are the place where the conduct giving rise to the injury occurred well that could be all over the globe but i think it started in texas i guess by your point of the receiver the injury was the injury being complained of in this case in some your honor it's basically a malicious prosecution case of the the young and the where and where did someone for purposes of argument that it is a malicious prosecution where did the prosecution take place nevada yeah i mean that's what they're complaining about right but then they found a claimed for this is basically a giant attorney's fees case they want to say that all the actions brought by my receiver all over the world were in bad faith and i'm sure the substance of honor under the restatement the which not only deals generally with what a good with what appropriate law would be in general about poor yes but there's a specific section on receivers and what law should apply to the conduct of receivers fortunately i discovered this friday and i guess lucky for my man in under section four fourteen of the restraints that kind of conflicts are in dealing with law determining whether t receivers personally liable in addressing claims arising upon transactions after appointment which i think generally refers to the topic here they're trying to make the receiver liable and of course all these claims for his litigation i do believe that in texas receivers do not have the same types of duties imposed on them that my opponents have argued other jurisdictions would require we literally don't believe in the doctrine of good faith  they don't have that duty and all the receivers do in texas is they take that oath under texas of all practicing remedies code section section sixty four point two two to swear to perform their duties faithfully which i argued before the court it does not mean that the receivers then have a duty of good faith and fair dealing to everybody that they run into now i'd like to address for a moment the the whole notion about what this receiver is supposed to be doing and i think that the jurisprudence shows that under a functional test that basically all courts apply to this question they're looking at what the receiver actually does not just this title and there's a good example in there you know pointed by the court well there's a distinction whether they're appointed to basically represent the child you know take the the duty from the parents and then give it to the guardian where he's basically the attorney for the for the child and in that case  no you're not really responsible to the court you're not advising the court you're not acting on the court's instructions you're just appointed by him and versus when a guardian ad litem is appointed to go out and basically do home studies and make recommendations to the court as to whether the child should be placed here or there or whatever and in those cases when the guardian's duties are more to the court rather than to a specific person in before  an arm of the judge or or not and then secondly even if he's responding to the judge's of course in the court reporter's duty is he out there exercising discretion in the performance of his judicial duties i say that when a receiver is appointed in a case like this where the task is to go out and find the assets of the defaulting husband there being alleged to be hidden under shells being being switched around all over the world that or where the money was going came from the wife she's the only party before the court so that brings me back to the basic five complaints that my  district judge in san antonio entered orders after the fact approving of this conduct what kind of i to wonder how one is supposed to look behind those orders the district the receiver actually let the lawyer for one of the for one of the beneficiaries of the receive go out and round up the assets for him he has basically performed a search and seizure in the courts and well we really don't like that but that's activities all in the name of pursuing assets would that be sanctionable under texas wattle controllable well the first thing is the person he will be who will be adversely affected by that are the parties who are going applications so if you're running all over the world running up fees to put money in his own pocket the judges in charge of that and in addition if either of the beneficiaries of the received a complaint then the judge has to take that into  considered in receiver immunity case that involved both state and federal law and only applied for a lot but of course the court is correct state law does apply here let me answer judge fletcher's question is there a difference if we apply t view texas law provides less protection for the receiver absolutely your honor and i think that mr thompson cited the exactly correct case the del court case the court talks about immunity of a guardian ad litum in the case and looks at two different functions simple it didn't linger long on the analysis it's said that when a guardian asked x as an advocate that is not a judicial act because judges cannot be advocates that's texas law you don't even get to the question whether the receiver was or was not within the scope of his authority under texas law because you're telling us that for purposes of texas law guardian item is the equivalent of receiver well the court bundles them all together when it talks about derivative judicial  munity the notion in texas a derivative judicial immunity as in most other jurisdictions is that it derives from that of the appointing judge and the texas courts analysis is we will recognize that authority court did not linger on that analysis you know when you're when you're talking about analogy and we go to the texas receivership statute and if so this is what a receiver is supposed to do under the control of the court  cannot do it's a question of which actions the officer has immunity for and if those actions are things that no judge could do there's not immunity that's a very big wind up to me to tell the court that i think  case i don't believe any state has an overwhelming interest i'd like to turn it into that a law to explain why i think we also win under nevada law now as it used to help me a little bit on the underlying that yes i think that the nevada court has to make a decision for this entire cluster of allegations that we've made even though the wrong complained did not take place in nevada where much of the wrong complaint have did occur and you know don't i'm not sticking with the liechtenstein case respect with respect to liechtenstein cast was there any other wrong complained of that took place in nevada the injury occurred in nevada because he's pursuing properties that exist in th wrongful clouding of the title of the properties in nevada that centerpiece not withstanding these allegations regarding other forums relates to the actions that weber has paikin in that to pursue the to pursue the property and on the question that the court is asking what happens where there's alleged to be an abuse of process in multiple jurisdictions i couldn't find any case i found a judge friendly case from the second circuit from the from the one nine hundred sevent in which he concluded that suit all across the country to pursue that would affect a new york contract ultimately you should just apply new york law to all of those i wish that i have this a case in for the court and to not i can provide it supplemental he's the only case i found that was clubs clearly nevada has an intern about it has an interest at least with respect to the large majority of the of the claims that are made in the abuse of process action let me turn to nevada law there is a case to understand just how limited nevada derivative judicial immunity is with respect to receiver it's important to understand just how broad the delegation was in the case the receiver in the case was given the authority to quote take such sta test for receivership community first it says that the receiver only enjoys immunity if he quote faithfully and carefully close quote it hears to be authority delegated to him and second he must act in good faith and the court rgument here is that mr weber is harassing oilman that he's pursued them without a basis for doing so and that in fact he's done so rather unapologetically i think most pla are unapologetic that's that's true but i think that goes back to the to the point that i was trying to make in response to judge fisher's point about the immunity recognized by a texas court driven judicial immunity exists to protect not  independent decision making of the judge and so the point is that when the receiver is an unapologetic plaintiff when he's out there advocating acting as an advocate that's when the immunity goes away because there's no common law analog for represent in criminal cases for prosecutors there is no immunity that was recognized that common law that would allow us to expand the immunity that judges get judges get this immunity because when they decide hard cases hard fractures cases we don't want would be quite extraordinary and i don't think consistent with nevada or texas law or federal law on that point let me go to this court's leading case on immunity of receivers the new alaska  very similar to texas law when the receiver is doing things that the judge otherwise would have to do that is it ministering to the business of the estate writing checks doing things like that that's where there's immunity that's not what we're talking settlement there's an e mail that he wrote to that effect in the record he's made misrepresentations to courts the lower court found that he made misrepresentations in order to perpetuate this harassment of oil men he has unapologetic aligned himself with a creditor and i think what i heard mr thompson say is well that's ok because he's already decided what he's going to do at the end of the receivership with the money that's exactly contrary to texas law and it's first taking impartiality it's precisely what he's done his share counsel she's given him money as judge nelson noted he takes direction from her he gives her legal advice he calls for his client he files briefs on her behalf he has hardly faithfully and is what level of immunity my or my not joy that's correct your honor but i think they're related i do think they are related because fundamentally the question is are we going to extend it worked in nevada court extended judicial immunity to this actor and i think to the court process who received immunity in the modern day we have some new kinds of actors in ministry of life judges other kinds of actors that didn't exist at common law and what the supreme court has sped mainly in in one thousand nine hundred seventy eight  might not realize that all of these orders were issued by the nevada court sorry by the texas court after webber had sued and we have after webber had been sued by oilmen starting in february of two thousand and this begins at page three twenty seven of volume two of the supplemental excerpt starting february sixteenth two thousand and number of orders start to appear from the texas court that say oh weber he was ok it was ok for him to go chase or oilmen every one of these orders comes after we see so what's happened and moreover these are orders that purport on their face to be orders granting him feel and it's undisputed on the record that weber wrote orders and there was a blank for the judge to write in a dollar amount which he did and then she signed them but essentially what was asking this court to hold is that a receiver asked within authority what the receiver can do is violate the tort law  of nevada act outside the authority delegated to him up to that point wait to get sued then go back to his appointing court and get the court to issue orders that after the fact say you have immunity and hundred nine if he thought he'd already had that authority back in one nine hundred ninety seven and in fact the result of him going to the to the texas court the second time he didn't get the authority he asked for or oilmen objected  we're pretty sure only ventilated if you'd like a minute where are but also let's start with a minute i'll try to make it really quick first thing i'd like to say is that there is a kernel of truth in what you just heard about about of the fact that there was some question of whether the texas state court was going to be able to exercise jurisdiction over oil men in texas the receiver was sent to to nevada attempt to bring the claims in a court where there would be jurisdiction and all he did was kane to nevada state court and file a motion an application for temporary orders to keep the property from being sold while the coins were litigated that case was claim against him for crimes all over the world and apply nevada law nevada in nevada court that's why i'm standing here this is just this is just not how we want to see our texas receivers treated well but down on him and in order to avoid trial which is what absolute judicial immunity is supposed to give you we're going to he's going to have to prove the merits of his cases all over the world on the merits really aren't it is she in order to show that it was federation officials associations