Freddy Burton v. Infinity Capital Management, 753 F.3d 954

Burton was injured in a bicycle–automobile collision and retained Koch to file suit; liens were placed on Burton’s claim by Valley Hospital, which Infinity later acquired the right to collect from Burton’s settlement.
Koch settled Burton’s claim for $185,000; settlement funds were placed in Koch’s client trust and Koch paid himself fees and costs.
Bankruptcy proceedings were initiated; Infinity urged interpleader in state court, and Burton and Koch were not named as parties.
Judge Israel held a status hearing; Gugino appeared for Infinity; the court questioned why funds were not fully interpled and considered a potential order to show cause.
Gugino prepared a proposed order to show cause at the court’s direction; Koch objected on the basis of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.
Judge Israel directed the preparation of an order; the draft was never filed and communications followed, culminating in Koch submitting a federal complaint alleging violations of the automatic stay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether drafting an order for a judge grants absolute quasi-judicial immunity	Koch argues Gugino acted within judicial function and should have immunity.	Gugino argues immunity should not attach because the drafting was not a discretionary judicial act, even if at a judge’s direction.	No; Gugino is not entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.

In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2002) (immunity extends to nonjudicial officers when performing judicial-function-like discretionary duties)
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court 1993) (discretionary judgment required for immunity; not all judicial-related acts are protected)
Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987) (immunity for court officials acting under judicial direction where appropriate)
Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court 1979) (attorneys acting as prosecutors or court officers are treated with special immunity limits)
Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1996) (law clerks can have immunity for duties intimately connected to judicial function)
Kincaid v. Vail, 969 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. 1992) (officials acting at the behest of a judge may receive absolute immunity)
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (Supreme Court 1997) (focus on protecting the proper functioning of the judiciary, not the individual)
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court 1991) (immunity extends to individuals when acting in judicial capacity to protect process)
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (Supreme Court 1988) (immunity limited to discretionary acts in judicial context)
Castillo v. Castillo, 297 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2002) (functional approach to immunity: focus on function, not label)