Source: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1615034.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FindLaw1st+%28FindLaw+Case+Law+Updates+-+1st+Circuit+COA%29
Timestamp: 2018-03-23 11:15:45
Document Index: 688270939

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 2', '§ 1961', '§ 1341', '§ 1291']

NYSTEDT v. NIGRO | FindLaw
Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, SELYA and STAHL, Circuit Judges.William P. Corbett, Jr., with whom The Corbett Law Firm was on brief, for appellant. Christopher R. Conroy, with whom Elizabeth A. Houlding and Peabody & Arnold LLP were on brief, for appellees.
In a preliminary ruling, the district court found two of the defendants (a lawyer who had served as a court-appointed discovery master and the lawyer's firm) immune from suit by reason of quasi-judicial immunity. The court certified this ruling as a partial final judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). After careful consideration, we affirm.
This imbroglio began with the death of Evan Nystedt in May of 2004. Soon thereafter, the decedent's attorney and friend, Earl Munroe, offered a purported will for probate. The probate court provisionally appointed Munroe as executor. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 192, §§ 13–14 (repealed 2008). Munroe neglected to provide the statutorily required notice to heirs, see id. § 13, and used his position as temporary executor to squander estate resources.
On December 17, 2004, the probate court appointed Eugene Nigro, a practicing lawyer, as a special master “to monitor the discovery process” and ensure “full [ ] compl[iance] with [ ] reasonable [discovery] requests” “on a timely basis.” The court authorized the special master to charge the parties, equally, his usual and customary hourly rates. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 53(c); Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 26(j).
In May of 2006, the plaintiff sought to oust the special master. The probate court rejected this entreaty. Discovery continued until February of 2007, when trial commenced. Following the trial, the probate court, noting that Munroe was both the preparer of the will and the person who stood to inherit from it, disallowed the will. The rejection of the will left the plaintiff as the decedent's administrator and the sole beneficiary of the estate. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 190, §§ 2–3 (repealed 2008). On appeal, the probate court's decision was affirmed. See Munroe v. Nystedt, No. 07–P–944, 2008 WL 4778297 (Mass.App.Ct. Nov.4, 2008).
The claims against the Nigro defendants are narrowly focused. The complaint posits that the special master's delinquent performance of his duties prolonged the will contest and, thus, caused the value of the estate to plummet. The plaintiff frames this plaint as both a racketeering conspiracy charge under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968, and a civil conspiracy charge under common law. In essence, he avers that the special master's misdeeds furthered a conspiracy crafted by Munroe and others. Viewed from that coign of vantage, the dispatch of each of the fifty-five invoices sent by the Nigro defendants was intended to “reap illicit[ ] benefits” from the conspiracy. These mailings ostensibly amounted to instances of mail fraud, which served as predicate acts for the racketeering charge. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1962. The invoices and ex parte communications also allegedly abetted Munroe's unlawful conversion of estate assets.
The Nigro defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted this motion by means of a docket entry because, in its view, all of the Nigro defendants' actions “relate[d] to [Nigro's] quasi-judicial work as a discovery master.” The district court then certified its order of dismissal as a final judgment. See Nystedt v. Munroe, No. 10–10754, 2012 WL 244939 (D.Mass. Jan.26, 2012) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)). This timely appeal followed.
Before us, the plaintiff challenges both the certification order and the order of dismissal. Without the certification, we would lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34, 39–40 (1st Cir.1991). Accordingly, we begin with the certification order and then mull the dismissal order.
“When an action presents more than one claim for relief ․ or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties․” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). This procedure, though sometimes useful, is in obvious tension with the “long-settled and prudential policy against the scattershot disposition of litigation.” Spiegel v. Trs. of Tufts Coll., 843 F.2d 38, 42 (1st Cir.1988). “It follows, then, that entry of judgment under the rule should not be indulged as a matter of routine or as a magnanimous accommodation to lawyers or litigants.” Id. Rather, Rule 54(b) should be applied sparingly and “only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
This argument exalts form over substance. A single count in a complaint may contain multiple claims and implicate multiple defendants. By its terms, Rule 54(b) permits the entry of a final judgment as to “one or more ․ parties,” without reference to the fact that the pleader may have organized such claim or claims within counts containing claims against other parties. See Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 39–40 (upholding Rule 54(b) certification of an order dismissing claims against some, but not all, defendants named in a single RICO count).
The doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity provides absolute immunity for those who perform tasks that are inextricably intertwined with the judicial function. Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200, 106 S.Ct. 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985); Coggeshall v. Mass. Bd. of Regis. of Psychologists, 604 F.3d 658, 662–63 (1st Cir.2010); LaLonde v. Eissner, 405 Mass. 207, 539 N.E.2d 538, 540–41 (Mass.1989). This doctrine is rooted in the wise idea that those who perform adjudicative functions “require a full exemption from liability.” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978).
Court-appointed discovery masters plainly perform judicial functions. Under accepted Massachusetts practice, they “control the extent of discovery, including the scheduling and oversight of depositions [and] the time for completion of discovery, and [they] resolve any discovery disputes which may arise during the course of the litigation.” Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 26(j). During his performance of these duties, a master is “functionally indistinguishable from a trial judge.” AccuSoft Corp. v. Palo, 237 F.3d 31, 58 (1st Cir.2001) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). It follows inexorably, as night follows day, that court-appointed discovery masters, acting in that capacity, share a judge's immunity from suit. Cf. Brown v. Newberger, 291 F.3d 89, 94 (1st Cir.2002) (discussing acts of court-appointed evaluators); Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito Y Ahorro Ponceno, 547 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1976) (discussing acts of court-appointed receiver). This immunity makes perfect sense; in its absence, court-appointed discovery masters would become “lightning rod[s] for harassing litigation aimed at judicial orders .” Kermit Constr., 547 F.2d at 3.
Judicial acts are those that are “intimately associated” with the judicial function. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this purpose, the judicial function has been defined as the adjudication of disputes between parties. Antoine, 508 U.S. at 435. Nigro's performance of his duties as a court-appointed discovery master falls comfortably within this sphere. This includes the sending of invoices for services rendered and the alleged ex parte communications—acts that were intimately associated with the adjudication of discovery disputes.
As to the invoices, they were sent in furtherance of the probate court's direction about how the special master should be paid and were an unremarkable vehicle for securing that compensation. As to the communications, the plaintiff has not alleged—nor does the record in any way suggest—that they pertain to anything other than Nigro's work as a court-appointed discovery master. Indeed, the probate court denied the motion to remove the special master, which was based on the same allegations of ex parte communications. There is no reason to look behind that ruling. In any event, a mere claim of ex parte contact, alleged to be in violation of Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3:09, canon 3(B)(7), does not, without more, establish that the nature of the communication was not inextricably intertwined with the judicial function. The fact that a court-appointed discovery master performs a judicial function in an imperfect (or even unethical) way does not, by itself, dissolve his quasi-judicial immunity. See Cok, 876 F.2d at 3 (holding that “allegations of malice,” “bad faith,” or “conspiracy” will not circumvent absolute quasi-judicial immunity).
We need not address these allegations item by item. Even if procedural irregularities of this sort existed, they would not strip Nigro of his jurisdiction to act as a court-appointed discovery master.1 The Supreme Court has squarely held that absolute judicial immunity is ineffaceable even in the presence of “grave procedural errors.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); see also Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 357, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871) (distinguishing the “validity of the act” from the question of whether judicial immunity attaches); New Eng. Cleaning Servs., 199 F.3d at 546 (similar). The errors here (if errors at all) were not grave and, in all events, fall within the prophylaxis afforded by Stump.
If more were needed—and we doubt that it is—there is an even more basic defect in the plaintiff's “absence of jurisdiction” argument. His claims amount to nothing more than claims of error that could, and should, have been addressed in the will contest itself. After all, “[w]ere collateral and retrospective attacks on technical defects of court appointments permitted, the court's work in an already difficult litigation field would often be undone, with consequent uncertainty, delay, and frustration.” Brown, 291 F.3d at 94. The plaintiff could, for example, have brought the alleged procedural flaws to the attention of the probate court and, if that court denied relief, could have raised the points on appeal. After all, one of the primary purposes of judicial immunity is to “establish appellate procedures as the standard system for correcting judicial error.” Forrester, 484 U.S. at 225.
The law is clear that even bad faith or malice will not divest the cloak of judicial immunity. See, e.g., Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11. A fortiori, negligence in performing judicial duties affects neither a defendant's immunity nor his jurisdiction; the judicial officer (or the person performing tasks intimately associated with core judicial functions) retains the power, whether or not negligent, to act in that capacity. See Cok, 876 F.2d at 4 (holding that “negligent performance” or “dereliction of duty” does not divest an individual of authority granted by the court).
This is whistling past the graveyard. The Firm had no independent involvement in the will contest. From what the complaint reveals, the Firm's only contribution was through the special master's use of its resources (such as staff assistance, stationery, and the like). This kind of support for the performance of judicial acts warrants quasi-judicial immunity. See Lewittes v. Lobis, 164 F. App'x 97, 98 (2d Cir.2006); Quitoriano v. Raff & Becker, LLP, 675 F.Supp.2d 444, 449 (S.D.N.Y.2009). In much the same way that a law clerk who helps in the formulation of an opinion is entitled to share in the judge's immunity, a law firm whose partner enjoys quasi-judicial immunity is entitled to share in that immunity for helping the partner to perform his judicial tasks. Cf. Bettencourt v. Bd. of Regis. in Med., 904 F.2d 772, 784–85 (1st Cir.1990) (affirming grant of quasi-judicial immunity to legal adviser to a board performing judicial functions). Any other result would render illusory the important protections afforded by the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity.
1. We do not mean to imply that the alleged procedural flaws were flaws at all. Although we need not (and do not) pass upon the question, it seems likely that the probate court was applying Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 26(j) rather than the probate court rules. See generally Mass. Supp. Prob. & Fam. Ct. R. 20 reporter's notes (2012) (noting that the 2011 amendment, which cross references the Massachusetts Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure, reflects the “usual practice” of the probate courts). The appointment at issue here appears to conform to the requirements of Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 26(j).