Nystedt v. Nigro, 700 F.3d 25

Nystedt, sole heir and administrator, challenged probate proceedings leading to the will contest and discovery disputes over a two-and-a-half-year period.
Special master Eugene Nigro and the firm Nigro, Pettepit & Lucas, LLP were appointed to monitor discovery and charge fees; plaintiff alleges ex parte communications and inadequate discovery as harms to the estate.
By the time plaintiff prevailed in probate court, the estate’s assets were depleted and legal fees exceeded $200,000; the will was ultimately disallowed, making plaintiff administrator and sole beneficiary only after significant litigation.
Plaintiff asserted RICO and civil conspiracy claims against Nigro and the Firm, arguing the special master’s conduct prolonged discovery and diminished estate value; invoices and communications were severally alleged to be part of a conspiracy.
District court granted 12(b)(6) dismissal for quasi-judicial immunity, then certified the dismissal as a final judgment under Rule 54(b); plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 54(b) certification was proper	The dismissal on multiple counts against one subset of defendants was not final as counts remained.	The order disposed of all claims against Nigro defendants and the district court properly certified under Rule 54(b) with no just reason for delay.	Yes, certification proper; final as to Nigro defendants, with no just reason for delay.
Whether Nigro and Firm enjoy quasi-judicial immunity	Invoices and ex parte communications are non-judicial or outside jurisdiction, stripping immunity.	Discovery masters perform judicial functions and enjoy absolute quasi-judicial immunity for acts intimately tied to adjudication, including invoicing and related communications.	Nigro and Firm enjoy absolute quasi-judicial immunity; invoices and communications are within immunity scope.
Whether exceptions to immunity apply	Procedural irregularities or absence of jurisdiction negate immunity.	Procedural flaws do not strip immunity; absence of jurisdiction exception does not apply here.	Exceptions fail; immunity remains intact.

Spiegel v. Trs. of Tufts Coll., 843 F.2d 38 (1st Cir. 1988) (finality under Rule 54(b) should be sparingly used)
Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994) (finality; discrete claims or parties)
Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34 (1st Cir. 1991) (final judgments and Rule 54(b) interpretation)
González Figueroa v. J.C. Penney P.R., Inc., 568 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 2009) (analysis of finality and Rule 54(b) standards)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (absolute judicial immunity unaffected by procedural errors)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (bad faith or malice does not defeat immunity)
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1988) (discriminatory dismissal of court employee is non-judicial act)
Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989) (negligent performance does not divest immunity)
AccuSoft Corp. v. Palo, 237 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001) (explains functional indistinguishability of master/ judge)
New Eng. Cleaning Servs., Inc. v. Am. Arb. Ass'n, 199 F.3d 542 (1st Cir. 1999) (arbitral immunity and processing of demands)
Brown v. Newberger, 291 F.3d 89 (1st Cir. 2002) (jurisdiction and immunity implications in review)
Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito Y Ahorro Ponceno, 547 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1976) (acts of court-appointed receivers and immunity)