Opinion
Case No. CV 11-06222 AHM (PLA)
10-26-2011
JOSEPH GIOVANAZZI v. ADAM TORRES, ET AL.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen Montes
Deputy Clerk
Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder
_____
Tape No.
Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
This case is before the Court on the unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Defendants Michael Dacquisto and Linda Schuette (collectively "Defendants"). Schuette is a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee who was granted title to a condominium that Plaintiff Joseph Giovanazzi claims he owns. Dacquisto was Schuette's attorney in the bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiff brought this Bivens action against Dacquisto, Schuette, and various federal court employees and judicial officers, alleging Fifth Amendment denial of due process and Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure.
Defendants Dacquisto and Schuette move to dismiss this case for the following reasons:
(1) This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881), and its progeny. Under the Barton doctrine, "a party must first obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before it initiates an action in another forum against a bankruptcy trustee or other officer appointed by the bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer's official capacity." In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005). No such leave was obtained.
(2) Defendants have quasi-judicial immunity for acts committed in furtherance of Schuette's duties as a bankruptcy trustee.
(3) This action is barred by collateral estoppel because the issues raised against
Defendants in this action are identical to issues that were already decided in two previous actions, one of which was before this Court. See Giovanazzi v. Schuette, et al., CV 09-0496 AHM (PLAx); In re Betsy Warren Lebbos, BK 06-22225-D-7 (E.D. Cal.).
(4) Plaintiff has pled insufficient facts to give rise to a legally cognizable claim.
The motion is unopposed. "The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion." Local Rule 7-12. Moreover, on its face the motion appears to be meritorious and raises issues that could not be cured by amendment.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion. Defendants Dacquisto and Shuette are dismissed from this action with prejudice.
Dkt. No. 16.
No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.