Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03888/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03888-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL D. FOLEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LOIS I. BRADY; EDWARD D. JELLEN;

VIVIAN H. RHOE; KORNFIELD, PAUL &

NYBERG, P.C., UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT, NORTHER DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-03888 JSW

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITH PREJUDICE

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Lois I. Brady, Vivian

Rhoe, and Kornfield, Paul & Nyberg, P.C., the motion for leave to file appear as amicus curaie

by the United States regarding issues of judicial immunity, and the proposed motion to dismiss

Bankruptcy Court Judge Edward D. Jellen and the United States District Court by the United

States. 

Plaintiff Darrell D. Foley (“Folley”) filed a long, convoluted complaint against Lois I.

Brady, Vivian Rhoe, Kornfield, Paul & Nyberg, P.C., Bankruptcy Court Judge Edward D.

Jellen and the United States District Court, asserting various causes of action based on the

administration of his bankruptcy case. In response to the pending motion to dismiss and motion

to appear as amicus, Folley filed a 52-page brief with numerous attachments. It is difficult to

understand the substance of Folley’s allegations or his arguments against dismissal.

Case 3:06-cv-03888-JSW Document 21 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A. Judicial Immunity.

The United States seeks to appear as amicus curiae to file a motion to dismiss Judge

Jellen and the United States District Court based on judicial immunity. While it is not clear to

the Court that an amici may move a court to dismiss parties, the Court may move sue sponte to

dismiss claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the Court may

do so “without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Id. Here, Foley had

notice of the basis for the dismissal – judicial immunity – from the United States’ proposed

motion to dismiss, and he argues against the motion in his lengthy opposition brief.

Judge Jellen is entitled to judicial immunity for his judicial actions. See Ashelman v.

Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). “Judges are immune from damage actions for

judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.” Id. “Judicial immunity applies

‘however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may

have proved to the plaintiff.’” Id. (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985)). A judge

lacks immunity only when he or she acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction ... or performs

an act that is not ‘judicial’ in nature.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Folley complains of acts Judge Jellen conducted in administering Folley’s bankruptcy

case. For example, Folley alleges that Judge Jellen was “negligent as a gatekeeper,” “avoid[ed]

responsibility for monitoring the conduct of the defendants,” refused to rule on motions, and

improperly authorized rule 2004 examinations. (Complaint at pages 9, 11.) Folley’s allegations

against Judge Jellen arise from his judicial acts, and thus, Judge Jellen is entitled to absolute

immunity. Accordingly, the Court dismisses all claims against him with prejudice.

It is not clear what allegations Folley asserts, if any, against the United States District

Court. Although Folley names the United States District, the only court conduct he appears to

complain of are those he alleges were taken by Judge Jellen. Therefore, because the Court

dismissed all claims against Judge Jellen with prejudice, the Court also dismisses all claims, to

Case 3:06-cv-03888-JSW Document 21 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Because the Court is dismissing all claims against Judge Jellen and the United

States Court sue sponte, the Court denies the motion by the United States for leave to appear

as amicus curiae and to file a motion to dismiss as moot.

3

the extent there are any, against the United States District Court for the same reason – absolute

immunity.1

B. Claims Against the Trustee.

The claims against Lois Brady, bankruptcy trustee, are dismissed for two reasons. First,

Brady is entitled to judicial immunity. See Lonneker Farms, Inc. v. Klobucher, 804 F.2d 1096,

1097 (9th Cir. 1986). “[A] trustee in bankruptcy or an official acting under the authority of the

bankruptcy judge, is entitled to derived judicial immunity because he is performing an integral

part of the judicial process.” Id. “Thus, the trustee losses his immunity if he acts in the clear

absence of all jurisdiction.” Mullis v. United States Bankr. Ct. for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d

1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). Folley claims that Brady was acting in the clear abence of all

jurisdiction. Upon reviewing the complaint, Folley appears to be asserting claims based on

Brady’s official duties as a bankruptcy trustee. Therefore, Brady is entitled to derived judicial

immunity and the Court dismisses the claims against Brady with prejudice.

Assuming arguendo, that Folley states claims against Brady for her conduct as a trustee

which fall outside of her derived judicial immunity, the Court dismisses the claims against her

sue sponte based on res judicata. See Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000) (noting

that one of the policies underlying res judicata is to avoid unnecessary judicial waste and thus

courts may dismiss an action sue sponte based on res judicata.”) 

“‘Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of

any claims that were raised or could have been raised in [a] prior action.’” Owens v. Kaiser

Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Western Radio Servs.

Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997)). Res judicata applies when, as between

two (or more) actions, there is “‘(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and

(3) identity or privity between parties.’” Id. Folley sued Brady in an earlier action filed in the

Northern District of California, Case No. C 05-01797, alleging that Brady violated her fiduciary

duty by negligently administering estate assets. In that action, the court dismissed Folley’s

Case 3:06-cv-03888-JSW Document 21 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

claims against Brady with prejudice. (See Case No. C 05-01797, Docket No. 8.) Folley asserts

similar allegations against Brady in this action. To the extent Folley brings additional

allegations, they arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts, i.e Brady’s conduct in

administering the estate in Folley’s bankruptcy case. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines,

681 F.2d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the claims against

Brady with prejudice based on res judicata.

C. Claims Against the Trustee’s Attorneys.

As noted above, it is difficult to determine what Folley alleges or what claims he seeks

to bring against the defendants. By his complaint, he appears to allege that Vivian Rhoe and

Kornfield, Paul & Nyberg, P.C., Brady’s attorneys, should be held liable for their conduct in

representing Brady. Because the Court has dismissed all claims against Brady, it follows that

all claims against Brady’s attorneys premised on the same underlying conduct must be

dismissed as well. Cf. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc., 131 Cal. App

.4th 802, 817-18 (2005) (noting that claims against an attorney for conduct on behalf of clients

are limited to where the attorney violates a duty he or she owes independently to the plaintiff or

where the attorney’s acts were not done in performance of a professional duty owed to the client

but were done for the attorney’s own personal financial gain). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03888-JSW Document 21 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 4