Opinion ID: 74816
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: a.p. 1995).

Text: 4 In this case, Defendants other than Rodgers were not court “appointed,” but rather court “approved.” We find this distinction irrelevant, and hold that these court approved officers functioned as the equivalent of court appointed officers for purposes of the Barton doctrine. See Allard v. Weitzman (In re DeLorean Motor Co.), 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993) (“We hold as a matter of law [that] . . . court appointed officers who represent the estate, are the functional equivalent of a trustee, where as here, they act at the direction of the trustee and for the purpose of administering the estate or protecting its assets.”). 4 “An unbroken line of cases . . . has imposed [this] requirement as a matter of federal common law.” Linton, 136 F.3d at 545. In so holding, these circuit courts have applied the rule referred to as the “Barton doctrine.” See id. The Supreme Court in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127 (1881), stated that “[i]t is a general rule that before suit is brought against a receiver[,] leave of the court by which he was appointed must be obtained.” Barton involved a receiver in state court, but the circuit courts have extended the Barton doctrine to lawsuits against a bankruptcy trustee. In Linton, the Seventh Circuit explained the reasons behind its application of the Barton doctrine to a bankruptcy trustee, as follows: “The trustee in bankruptcy is a statutory successor to the equity receiver, and . . . [j]ust like an equity receiver, a trustee in bankruptcy is working in effect for the court that appointed or approved him, administering property that has come under the court’s control by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code.” 136 F.3d at 545. In addition, the policy behind this leave of court requirement was well-stated by the Seventh Circuit: If [the trustee] is burdened with having to defend against suits by litigants disappointed by his actions on the court’s behalf, his work for the court will be impeded. . . . Without the requirement [of leave], trusteeship will become a more irksome duty, and so it will be harder for courts to find competent people to appoint as trustees. Trustees will have to pay higher malpractice premiums, and this will make the administration of the bankruptcy laws more expensive . . . . 5 Furthermore, requiring that leave to sue be sought enables bankruptcy judges to monitor the work of the trustees more effectively. Linton, 136 F.3d at 545. Plaintiff’s suit is a run-of-the mill Barton case. Carter sued Defendants in district court for breaches of fiduciary duties stemming from their official bankruptcy duties. He needed leave of the bankruptcy court, and absent that leave, the district court correctly found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his cause of action. B. Federal vs. State Causes of Action Carter argues that the Barton doctrine requires parties to obtain leave of the bankruptcy court only when they wish to pursue a state court remedy. We disagree, and hold that when leave is required, it is required before pursuing remedies in either state or other federal courts. We find no reason to distinguish between instances where the trustee is sued in state court and those in which the trustee is sued in federal court. See Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani), 190 B.R. 875, 885 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) (“[L]eave to sue the trustee is required to sue in those federal courts other than the bankruptcy court which actually approves the trustee’s appointment.”); In re Krikava, 217 B.R. 275, 279 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1998) (“Consent of the appointing bankruptcy court is required even when the plaintiff seeks to sue in another federal court.”). 6