
Q: I am a health and safety receiver appointed over property that had numerous code violations and was rat infested. The court ordered me to bring the property into the code compliance and, eventually, to sell the property to pay for the repairs and my fees. The owner has now sued the city and me in federal court alleging her civil rights were violated and to prevent me from selling the property. What is the best way to get rid of her federal lawsuit?
A: This seems to happen often in health and safety receivership cases. The defendants must be reading the same online posts. The normal method receivers use to dispose of these cases is to move to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Barton rule. Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881). The Supreme Court in Barton held federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits against receivers where permission was not first obtained from the court appointing the receiver. Barton, however, is not the only way to deal with such cases.
In Hoffman v. City of San Diego, 2019 WL 1112046 (S.D. Cal. 2019), the property owner sued the city and receiver under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations and to prevent the sale of her property. The city and the receiver moved to dismiss the case citing Barton, but also asked the court to abstain under what is known as the Younger doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (criminal); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975) (civil). Surprisingly, the district court refused to dismiss under Barton finding the exception to Barton in 28 U.S.C. § 959(a) applied. That section provides that receivers may be sued, without leave of the appointing court, with “respect to any of their acts or transactions in carrying on business connected with the property.” In its opinion the court does not explain why it felt the exception applied or how the complaint of civil rights violations related to the acts of receiver “in carrying on business connected with the property.” The court did, however abstain – relying on the Younger doctrine. The Younger doctrine requires a federal court to abstain: “if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing (2) implicate important state interests and (3) provides an adequate opportunity for the federal plaintiff to assert his federal claims.” San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 147 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1998). The court held the Younger conditions were met because the receivership case was still ongoing, it involved important state interests (health and safety), and the owner could raise her constitutional claims before the state court and, if necessary, on appeal. Therefore, you should move to dismiss the case under the Barton rule and also, alternatively, ask the court to abstain under the Younger doctrine.
*Peter A. Davidson is a Partner of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP a Beverly Hills Law Firm. His practice includes representing Receivers and acting as a Receiver in State and Federal Court.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court and ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- FDA Announces 2024 Compliance Date for 2021-2022 Food Labeling Regulations
- Consolidated Appropriations Act: Additional Paycheck Protection Program Loans
- Employer Reminder: Minimum Wage Increases for 2021
- LA County Considers Mandated $5/Hour “Hero Pay” Increase For Grocery Workers
- Los Angeles County Issues Mandatory Self-Quarantine for Non-Essential Travel
- New Dietary Guidelines "Make Every Bite Count"
- Southern California Regional Stay at Home Order Extended
- Sources of Foodborne Illness Report Released
- New Lawsuits Challenge State COVID-19 Measures
- FDA, EPA and USDA Renew Inter-Agency Food Waste Reduction Initiative
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014