Blixseth v. Brown
470 B.R. 562
D. Mont.2012Background
- Blixseth sues Brown and his law firm alleging misconduct in bankruptcy proceedings as Chair of the Unsecured Creditors Committee, including malpractice, fiduciary breach, and other claims.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Barton Doctrine and for failure to state a claim.
- Bankruptcy Court proceedings addressed similar issues; the Barton Doctrine governs whether suits may be brought in district court without prior bankruptcy court leave.
- Brown and co-defendants argued Blixseth cannot sue absent leave, as the alleged acts were in the official capacity of a court-approved officer and related to administration of the estate.
- Stern v. Marshall is discussed to assess whether it limits bankruptcy court authority over core claims; the court concludes Barton still governs, with Stern not barring Barton.
- The court grants the Barton-based jurisdictional dismissal; Blixseth’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barton Doctrine applies to bar suit without bankruptcy leave | Blixseth argues no pre-suit leave required | Brown and co-defendants contend Barton applies | Yes; Barton applies, requiring leave prior to filing |
| Whether Stern v. Marshall negates Barton applicability | Stern undermines bankruptcy court finality over core claims | Stern does not bar Barton application | Stern does not bar Barton; Barton remains applicable |
| Whether §959(a) or §157(b)(5) create exceptions to Barton | These provisions supply exceptions to Barton | These provisions do not create applicable exceptions here | Neither §959(a) nor §157(b)(5) applies to defeat Barton in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) (establishes Barton Doctrine requiring leave before suit against bankruptcy officers)
- Crown Vantage, Inc. v. Nielsen, 421 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2005) (articulates Barton elements and court forum considerations)
- Jeffrey v. Fort James Corp., 421 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2005) (discusses Barton applicability in the Ninth Circuit)
- Carter v. Rodgers, 220 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2000) (extends Barton to court-approved officers as equivalent to appointed officers)
- In re Harris, 590 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 2009) (core proceedings involving administration of the estate include certain tort claims against officers)
- In re Harris Pine Mills, 44 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1995) (core proceedings involving administration of the estate)
- Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) (limits bankruptcy court final judgments on core/state-law claims but does not bar Barton)
- In re Marshall, 600 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2010) (discusses Stern and jurisdiction over certain tort claims)