Becky Develle, V Landon Poppleton, 75995-7

In 2011 a superior court matter involved a custody dispute; a bilateral parenting evaluation was conducted by Dr. Landon Poppleton to assist the court in resolving parenting/custody issues.
In August 2014 Becky Develle sued Poppleton for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and gross negligence, alleging the evaluation led to loss of custody and her son's subsequent suicide.
Poppleton moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6) based on quasi-judicial immunity; the trial court granted dismissal on that ground.
Develle filed a second amended complaint that removed the express allegation that Poppleton had been appointed by court order and instead alleged an arrangement between the parties for the evaluation.
On appeal Develle argued the evaluator lacked court-authorized authority; the court noted the record (and her briefing) otherwise acknowledged a court order approving the evaluation, but the order itself was not designated in the appellate record.
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding Poppleton was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as an "arm of the court" performing a court-ordered evaluative function.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Poppleton is protected by quasi-judicial immunity for performing a parenting evaluation	Develle argued Poppleton was liable for negligent evaluation and related torts because he acted improperly and (as she later alleged) under a private arrangement	Poppleton argued he was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because he acted as an arm of the court in performing the court-ordered evaluation	Court held Poppleton has quasi-judicial immunity because he performed a function comparable to judicial actors and assisted the court in its adjudicative role
Whether dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) was proper despite amended pleading language deleting the "appointed by the court" allegation	Develle contended the order didn’t grant Poppleton authority and the amended complaint removed the appointment allegation	Poppleton relied on the original allegations and Develle’s briefing acknowledging the court order; he argued immunity applies regardless	Court held dismissal proper; the appellate record and Develle’s own filings indicate a court-ordered evaluation and she failed to perfect the record to defeat immunity

FutureSelect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 954 (discusses CR 12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322 (standards for pleading and dismissal)
Reddy v. Karr, 102 Wn. App. 742 (quasi-judicial immunity for court-appointed investigator/evaluator)
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91 (discusses quasi-judicial immunity principles)
Gilliam v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 89 Wn. App. 569 (functions integral to judicial proceedings include fact-finding and investigations)
Janaszak v. State, 173 Wn. App. 703 (immunity and related doctrines)
Feis v. King County Sheriffs Dep't, 165 Wn. App. 525 (discussion of immunity and pleading sufficiency)