T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T JO H N R A M IR E Z , as E l der of W atK hm er V i pass anar am and p re si dentof K hm er B u d d h i stA sso ci at i o n , th e S p i ri tu al E n t i ty; e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. D A V I D J . P A S T E RN A K ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 56034 D . C. N o . 8 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 2 4 5 - D O CAG R ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D a vi d O . C a rt e r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng Submi tt e d De c e mbe r14, 2010 ** B e f o r e : G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d T H O M A S , C ircu it Ju d g es. P la in tif f s ap p e a l p r o s e f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e r s d is m is s in g th e irc iv il ri g h t s act i o n an d aw ard i n g R u l e 1 1 san ct i o n s t o co u rt -ap p o i n t ed recei v er D av i d J. 

# FI LED JAN 07 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 56034 2 P a s t e rna k. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the d is m is s a l o f

ac o m p la in t f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im , N ew A laska D ev . C orp. v. G ue t s c how , 869 F . 2d 1298, 1300 ( 9th C i r . 1989) , a nd f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the a w a r d o f R u le 1 1 s a n c tio n s , B usterv. G re ise n , 10 4 F . 3d 11 86 , 11 89 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed pl ai nt i ff s’ cl ai m s a gai nstP as t ernak because the st at e c ou rtac t ed w i thi n i t s j ud i ci al di sc re t i on i n app oi nt i ng P as t ernak a s r e c e i ve r , w a s noti t s e l f a c t i ng i n the c l e a rabs e nc e of a l l j ur i s di c t i on, a nd P as t ernak w as ent i t l ed t o absol ut e quasi -j ud i ci al i m m un i ty f or ac t i on s und ert aken i n h i s c apac i ty a s r ec ei ver thatw er e “ funct i on al l y c om parabl e t o tho se of j ud ges. ” C urr yv . Cas t i l lo (

I n r e Cas t i l lo) , 29 7 F . 3d 94 0, 94 7 (9th C i r. 20 02 ); see a l so Stum p v . Sparkm an , 435 U . S . 349, 356- 57 ( 1978) ( “ A j udge w i l l notbe de pr i ve d of im m u n ityb e c au s e th e a c tio n h e to o kw a s in e rr o r , w a s d o n e m a lic io u s ly , o rw a s in exce ss of hi s autho ri ty; ra ther, he w i l l be subj ec tt o l i abi l i ty onl y w hen h e has ac t ed in th e ‘c le a rab s e n c e o f

a ll ju r is d ic tio n .’” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ; N ew A laska D ev . , 869 F . 2d at13 03 -04 & n. 6 (concl ud i ng thatst at e c ou rt -app oi nt ed re ce i ver w as ent i t l ed to ab s o lu te im m u n ity f

o ra lle g e d ly m is m an a g in g c o m p a n y a s s e ts ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a w a r di ng R ul e 11 s a nc t i ons to P a s te rn a kb a s e d o n its c o n c lu s io n th a t p la in tif f s ’ c o m p la in t w a s f

r iv o lo u s . See09- 56034 3 B uster , 104 F . 3d a t1190 ( “ F r i vol ous f i l i ngs a r e thos e tha ta r e both ba s e l e s s a nd m a de w i thoutar e a s onabl e a nd c om pe t e nti nqui ry . ” ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd ci t at i on om i tt ed). A F F I R M E D .