N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALTA GOLD M INING C O., by and through its C ourt Appointe d R e c e i ve r Ange lique L.M
. C la

rk, Pla intiff-c o unte r-de fe ndantAppe lle e , v. AER O-NAUTIC AL LEASING C O RPOR ATION, a

De la ware c orporation, De fe nda nt-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lla nt. No. 14-16102 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00311-R C J-VPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

ALTA GOLD M INING C O., by and through its C ourt Appointe d R e c e ive r Ange lique L.M . C la

rk, Pla i ntiff-c ounte r-de fe ndantAppe lla nt,
v. C ENTUR Y C APITAL PAR TNER S, LLC ; M IC HAEL ANTHONY, No. 14-16194 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00311-R C J-VPC



# FIL ED
JUL 26 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s, AER O-NAUTIC AL LEASING C ORPOR ATION, a

De la ware c orporation, De fe nda nt-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lle e . Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 16, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR O EDER , TASHIM A, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Alta Gold M ining C o. (“ Alta

Gold” ) a nd Ae ro-Na

utic a l Le a s ing C orp. (“ Ae ro-Na

utic a l” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing, re spe c tive ly , the ir
c la im s a nd c ounte rc la im s ba se d on a bsolutequa si-judic i a l im

m unity . W e have jurisdic tion ove r the ir c onsolida te d a ppe a l s unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. Alta Gold wa s a

gold mi ning c om

p any whose c orporate c ha

rte r wa s re voke d in 2003, a fte r bankruptc y proc e e dings. A Ne va da

sta te c o urt a ppointe d Ange lique C la rk a s Alta Gold’ s re c e ive r in 2011 a t the re que s t of one of Alta Gold’ s c re ditors. In 2013, Alta Gold, by

and through C la

rk, sue d Ae ro-Na

utic a l; C e ntury

C a pita l Partne rs, LLC (“ C C P” ); a n d C C P’ s princ ipa ls, B ra dle y Swahn and M ic ha e l Anthony , in Ne va d a

sta te c ourt. Alta

Gold c ha lle n ge d the va lidity of 25 m illion 2sha

re s of Alta

Gold stoc k that Ae ro-Na utic a l c la im e d to own. Thesha re s we re purporte dly

issue d in 2006, when a

Ne va da sta te c ourt a ppointe d Swa

hn a s Alta Gold’ s c u stodia

n at Swa hn’ s re que st; Swa

hn a ppointe d Anthony

a s Alta Gold’ s sole offic e r and dire c tor; a nd Anthony

issue d the sha re s to C C P. Ae ro-Na

utic a l purc ha se d the sha

re s from C C P in 2012. Alta

Gold a lle ge d in its c om

pla int tha t Swahn’ s c ustodia

nship ha d be e n a

sha m and tha t the subse que nt issue of stoc k wa s thus invalid. Ae ro-Na utic a l re m ove d the suit to the Distric t of Ne v a da

ba se d on dive rsity
and file d c ounte rc la im s a ga inst C la rk, a lle ging va

rious a buse s in he r role a s Alta Gold’ s re c e ive r. C la

rk m ove d the distric t

c o urt to a bsta in from

a djudic at ing Ae roNa utic a l’ s c ounte rc l a im s, a

n d the de fe nda

nts m ove d to dismiss C la

rk’ s c la im s. The distric t c ourt gra

nte d the se m otions a

nd dismi sse d a ll of thepa rtie s’ c la im s a

nd
c ounte rc la im s. The c ourt he ld tha t the c la im s a ll ste m

m e d from Swahn’ s a

nd C la rk’ s a c tions a s c o urt-a

ppointe d c ustodia

n a nd re c e ive r, re spe c t ive ly , a nd we re thus ba rre d by a bsolutequa si-judic ia l im

m unity unde r fe de ra l la

w. C la rk and Ae ro-Na

utic a l both a

ppe a le d the distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l orde r. W e re vie w denov o the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of c l a im s ba se d on judic ia l im m unity
. Se e Romano v . Bible , 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th C ir. 1999).

31. Ae ro-Na utic a l a rgue s for the first tim e on a ppe a l tha t the distric t c ourt
e rre d in a pply ing fe de ra l, rathe r tha n sta t e , offic ia l im

m unity la w to dismiss its
c ounte rc la im s a g a inst C l ark. Ae ro-Na utic a l wa ive d this a

rgum e nt by

fa iling to
ra ise it be fore the distric t c ourt. Se eIn reMe rc ury Inte rac tiv eC

orp. Se c . Litig. , 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th C ir. 2010)

. W e thus de c l ine to a ddre ss it a nd a na ly z e whe the r the dism issa l of Ae ro-Na utic a l’ s c ounte rc la im s wa s prope r unde r fe de ra l offic ia l im

m unity la w. 2. Unde r fe de ra l l aw, c ourt-a ppointe d “ re c e ive rs a

re c ourt offic e rs who sha re the im m unity awarde d to judge s.” N

e w Alask a De v . C orp. v . Gue tsc how , 869 F.2d 1298, 1303 (9th C ir. 1989) (inte rna l quota tion m arks o m itte d). R e c e ive rs
are t hus e ntitle d to a

bsolute im

m unity unle ss the ir a c ts a

re c le arly be y ond the ir jurisdic tion or not judic i a l in na ture . Id. In this c a se , C la

rk wa s e ntitle d to a

b solute qua si-judic ia l im

m unity a s to a ll of Ae ro-Na

utic a l’ s c ounte rc la im s. Ae ro-Na utic a l’ s c la i m s a

rise from C la rk’ s
m ana ge m e nt of Alta

Gold’ s a ffa irs pursua

nt to thea ppointing c ourt’ s judic ia lly
c onfe rre d a

uthority . Ae ro-Na

utic a l c ha lle nge s the m a

nne r in whic h C la

rk distribute d Alta

Gold’ s a sse ts, c onte ste d Ae ro-Na utic a l ’ s owne rship sta

k e in Alta Gold a nd its pa rtic ipation in the

re c e ive rship a c tion, se ttle d with Alta Gold’ s
c re d itor, m a inta ine d c ontrol of Alta Gold’ s books a

nd re c ords, a

nd de c line d to hold
4a

sha re holde r m e e t ing. All of the se a c ts we re unde rtake n pursua nt to the
a ppointing c ourt’ s orde r. B e c a use the a c t ions Ae ro-Na

utic a l c ha lle nge s we re not
c le arly be y ond C la

rk’ s jurisdic tion, sheis im m une from Ae ro-Na utic a l’ s c la im s. 3. C la rk c onte nds tha

t, rathe r tha

n dismissing he r c la im s , the distric t
c ourt should ha

ve re m ande d he r a c tion to Ne v a da sta t e c ourt, whe re it origina

te d. Ac c ording to C la

rk, onc e the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t it “ l a c ke d jurisdic tion”
ove r the c la im s a

nd c ounte rc la im s, the prope r c ourse of a c tion wa s to re m and, not dism iss, thec la im s. C ontra ry to C la rk’ s a rgum e nt, the distric t

c o urt ha d dive rsity

jurisdic tion
ove r C la rk’ s c la im s a

nd Ae ro-Na

utic a l’ s c ounte rc la im s . The distric t c ourt a t no point de te rm ine d tha

t it “ la c ke d jurisdic tion” ove r C la rk’ s c la im s; rat

he r, it he ld that C la rk wa s e ntitle d to a

re c e ive r’ s qua si-judic ia l im m unity . Thus, it wa s not
re quire d to re m and, a s oppose d to dismiss, thec la im s on this ba sis. C f. N e w Alask a De v . C orp. , 869 F.2d a

t 1304 (a ffirm ing distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of c la im s
a ga inst c o urt-a

ppointe d re c e ive r ba se d on qua si-judic ia l im m unity). AFFIRM E D.

5