Phillips v. Goldman

── Phillips v. Goldman ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: KEVAN HARRY GILMAN, No. 24-2249 Debtor, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-04450- MWF TAMMY R. PHILLIPS; TAMMY R. PHILLIPS, APLC, Plaintiffs - Appellants, OPINION v. AMY L. GOLDMAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 13, 2026 Pasadena, California Filed May 7, 2026 Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Ronald M. Gould, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Jay S. Bybee, Morgan B. Christen, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, John B. Owens, Daniel A. 2 PHILLIPS V. GOLDMAN Bress, Danielle J. Forrest, Anthony D. Johnstone and Ana de Alba, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Nguyen SUMMARY* Bankruptcy The en banc court (1) reversed the district court’s decision upholding the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding based on a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee’s immunity from allegations that she failed to preserve and safeguard estate assets, and (2) remanded for the bankruptcy court to consider the trustee’s remaining arguments for dismissal. The en banc court held that it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s order affirming in part and reversing in part the bankruptcy court’s dismissal and remanding for further proceedings. In light of plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that they were standing on the complaint rather than seeking leave to amend in the bankruptcy court, the en banc court concluded that the district court’s order was effectively final, and the en banc court therefore had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The en banc court held that a bankruptcy trustee sued in her personal capacity may be entitled to quasi-judicial * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  PHILLIPS V. GOLDMAN 3 immunity, which provides trustees absolute immunity from liability for functions involving the exercise of discretionary judgment that are essential to the authoritative adjudication of private rights to the bankruptcy estate. The en banc court held that a bankruptcy trustee also may be entitled to derived judicial immunity, under which a trustee will not be held liable when (1) her acts were within the scope of her authority; (2) the debtor, creditors, and other interested parties had notice of the proposed acts; (3) the trustee candidly disclosed the proposed acts to the bankruptcy court; and (4) the bankruptcy court approved the acts. The en banc court held that the trustee was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because the complaint’s allegations related to the trustee’s functions of gathering estate property, investigating the debtor’s finances, and operating the debtor’s business on a short-term basis. These functions did not determine how assets would be divided among creditors, but rather called upon the trustee to act as a property manager. The en banc court also concluded that, on the current record, the trustee was not entitled to derived judicial immunity. COUNSEL Charles Q. Jakob (argued), Law Office of Charles Q. Jakob, Carmichael, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Lann G. McIntyre (argued), Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San Diego, California; Maria L. Garcia, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles, California; Michael Wilk, Kaufman Dolowich LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. 4 PHILL