William Carroll, Jr. v. Samera Abide
788 F.3d 502
5th Cir.2015Background
- William and Carolyn Carroll and their daughter Pamela Alonso sued bankruptcy trustee Samera Abide for damages, alleging Fourth Amendment violations arising from seizure and access of a personal computer and a later search of their home.
- The Carrolls filed individual and corporate (RedPen LLC) bankruptcies; Abide was trustee for both estates.
- A dispute over ownership of certain movable property was withdrawn from the bankruptcy court to the district court because of Stern v. Marshall concerns; the district court ordered production of RedPen documents and computers to the trustee.
- Abide removed a computer the Carrolls claimed was personal; the district court allowed the trustee to retain it for forensic evaluation. The district court later ordered the computer returned. A forensic report showed the computer had been accessed while in Abide’s custody.
- The Carrolls brought a separate civil suit in district court alleging unlawful seizure and searches. Abide moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Barton doctrine (failure to seek bankruptcy-court leave) and alternatively on the merits.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Barton; the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding district court jurisdiction existed for claims based on trustee actions taken pursuant to district-court orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barton requires plaintiffs to obtain bankruptcy-court leave before suing a trustee in district court | Carrolls: Barton does not apply because the trustee acted under district-court orders and the suit was filed in that same district court | Abide: Barton requires leave of the appointing bankruptcy court before suit against a trustee, even in district court | Held: Barton does not bar suit in district court when trustee acted pursuant to district-court orders; district court had jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court’s withdrawal of the adversary proceeding affects Barton’s application | Carrolls: withdrawal to district court and district-court orders remove the concern Barton addresses | Abide: same-forum status does not avoid Barton; leave still required | Held: Withdrawal and district-court supervision undermine the Barton rationale for requiring bankruptcy-court leave in this case |
| Whether the trustee’s status as an officer of the appointing bankruptcy court requires bankruptcy-court protection from personal liability | Carrolls: district court also supervised trustee actions here, so its interest in protecting the trustee suffices | Abide: trustee protection rationale favors requiring bankruptcy-court leave | Held: Because trustee acted under district-court authority, the district court shares protective interest and Barton’s protective rationale does not mandate dismissal |
| Whether the district court should have resolved the Rule 12(b)(6) merits motion before dismissal | Carrolls: not applicable if jurisdiction exists | Abide: jurisdictional dismissal appropriate first | Held: Court remanded so the district court may address the 12(b)(6) motion in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) (establishes rule that leave of appointing court is required before suing a receiver/trustee)
- Vass v. Conron Bros., 59 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1932) (early circuit application of Barton to trustees)
- Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) (limits bankruptcy-court adjudicatory authority; prompted withdrawal of adversary proceeding)
- In re Lehal Realty Assocs., 101 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996) (discusses trustee as an officer of the court and rationale for protective application of Barton)