Opinion ID: 2651622
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Germaine and quasi-judicial immunity

Text: D'Angelo seeks to contest the district court's finding that Germaine is immune to suit for his acts as Commissioner appointed by the Derry Family Court to investigate and produce a report on D'Angelo's financial condition. Though slightly more developed in his appellate brief, at oral argument D'Angelo -10- whittled down his claim to whether Germaine is indeed entitled to immunity if he failed to do his job. Specifically, D'Angelo claims Germaine failed to follow what he purports were the Derry Family Court's orders to Germaine to meet with D'Angelo in the process of carrying out his investigation of the latter's finances. As a threshold matter, we note that the order D'Angelo alleges Germaine violated, as quoted in his own appellate brief, was handed down by the Derry Family Court after D'Angelo's uncooperative and misleading approach to the litigation had been well documented. D'Angelo apparently attempts to have us overlook the fact that the order instructed him, and not Germaine, to pay a retainer to the Commissioner and cooperate with him. As far as the record shows, Germaine carried out his investigation, and filed the report as he was tasked to do by the Derry Family Court. And in any event, D'Angelo's claims against Germaine, even if couched in the most imaginative light, fail to pierce the veil of immunity. The doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity provides absolute immunity for those who perform tasks that are inextricably intertwined with the judicial function. Nystedt v. Nigro, 700 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). Court appointed discovery masters and the like plainly perform judicial functions and so long as they act in that capacity, they share a judge's immunity from suit. Id. at 30-31 (citations omitted). In fact, even allegations of malice or bad faith do not defeat immunity. -11- Id. at 31-32 (citing Cok v. Consentino, 876 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1989)). The power of the New Hampshire courts to appoint special officers such as Germaine is well established and cannot be seriously disputed. See In re O'Neil, 159 N.H. 615, 623-24, 992 A.2d 673, 678-79 (2010). And though there are narrow exceptions to the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, D'Angelo mentions none in this case. Even affording D'Angelo's argument the utmost generosity, it amounts to little more than an assertion that Germaine did not do his job properly. As the district court correctly concluded, this is unquestionably the kind of claim that quasi-judicial immunity prohibits. See Nystedt, 700 F.3d at 31 (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.). Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of this claim stands on equal footing as D'Angelo's Due Process and Equal Protection allegations, and thus, we need go no further.