788 F.3d 502
5th Cir.2015Background
- William and Carolyn Carroll and their daughter Pamela Alonso sued bankruptcy trustee Samera Abide for alleged Fourth Amendment violations after Abide seized and later accessed a personal computer and searched the Carrolls’ home.
- Abide was trustee for both the Carrolls’ personal bankruptcy and their closely held company RedPen; a related adversary proceeding about ownership of movable property had been withdrawn from the bankruptcy court to the district court.
- The district court ordered production of RedPen records and directed turnover of computers; Abide removed a computer the Carrolls said was purely personal.
- The district court allowed Abide to retain the computer for forensic evaluation, later ordered its return, and ultimately granted summary judgment for Abide on ownership of the movables; this court affirmed that disposition.
- A forensic exam after return showed the computer had been accessed while in Abide’s custody. The Carrolls then filed a separate federal suit for damages alleging unlawful seizure and search.
- The district court dismissed the damage suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Barton doctrine for failure to obtain leave of the bankruptcy court; the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barton requires leave of the bankruptcy court before suing a bankruptcy trustee in district court | Carrolls: No — trustee acted under district court orders, so no bankruptcy-court leave required | Abide: Yes — Barton requires leave before suit against trustee even in district court | Held: Barton does not bar suit in district court for trustee acts taken pursuant to district court orders; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was improper |
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from seizure/access of the computer | Carrolls: District court has jurisdiction because seizure/access occurred under district court supervision | Abide: Actions were taken as bankruptcy trustee and thus subject to Barton leave requirement | Held: Jurisdiction exists where trustee acted under district court order and suit is in that same district court |
| Whether the Barton rationale (protecting estate distribution and appointing court) applies here | Carrolls: Barton rationales (protecting appointing court’s control over assets) are not implicated when actions occurred under district court orders | Abide: Trustee needs protection from suit regardless of which court’s order authorized actions | Held: Rationales do not justify requiring bankruptcy-court leave because the district court supervised the contested actions and shares interest in protecting the trustee |
| Procedural consequence: whether merits should be considered | Carrolls: District court should reach merits after finding jurisdiction | Abide: District court lacked jurisdiction so merits were not reached | Held: Case remanded — district court erred to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and may consider Rule 12(b)(6) defenses in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) (receiver must obtain leave of appointing court before being sued)
- Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) (limits on bankruptcy-court adjudicative power; prompted withdrawal of referral here)
- Villegas v. Schmidt, 788 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2015) (applied Barton to trustees; district court supervisory relationship does not negate Barton)
- In re Linton, 136 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 1998) (discussing Barton’s application in bankruptcy contexts)