Ryan v. Ruby
3:11-cv-02090
| S.D. Cal. | Feb 15, 2012Background
- Ryan sues bankruptcy trustee Ruby for defamation and improper disclosure, in SD Cal, arising from actions taken in official capacity as trustee for Ryan's bankruptcy estate.
- Ruby serves as Chapter 7 trustee for Ryan’s Virginia bankruptcy proceeding pending in the Eastern District of Virginia since July 16, 2008.
- Ryan filed the complaint on July 14, 2011, alleging defamation under California Civil Code § 46.
- The Court previously denied Ruby’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion without prejudice, recognizing Barton v. Barbour requires leave from the appointing court to sue a bankruptcy trustee for acts in official capacity.
- Ruby renewed the motion, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Barton doctrine because Ryan did not obtain permission from the Virginia bankruptcy court.
- The Court grants Ruby’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismisses Ryan’s action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barton doctrine bars the suit without appointing court permission | Ryan argues the state defamation claim is outside the Barton doctrine’s scope. | Ruby contends leave from the Virginia bankruptcy court is required before pursuing actions against the trustee in another forum. | Lacks subject matter jurisdiction without Virginia court leave. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) (Barton doctrine requires leave of appointing court for actions against bankruptcy trustees in other forums)
- In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2005) (lack of jurisdiction if no leave; explains in rem jurisdiction rationale)
- Harris v. Harris, 590 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 2009) (unauthorized suits against bankruptcy officers usurp powers of appointing court)
- Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (12(b)(1) vs 12(b)(6) challenge addressed; jurisdictional challenges treated as 12(b)(1))
- Association of American Medical Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (limits on federal jurisdiction; burden on alleging jurisdiction)
- McConnell v. United States, 478 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2007) (resolve factual disputes in jurisdictional challenges in favor of non-movant where appropriate)
- U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for evaluating evidence in jurisdictional review)