| ABI

November 12, 2024

Judicial Immunity Can Protect a Trustee when Barton Doesn’t Apply, Circuit Says

When a trustee mistakenly seizes a nondebtor’s property, the Barton doctrine by itself doesn’t protect the trustee, but judicial immunity does.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://abi-opinions.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/Juravin.pdf

Case Details

Case Citation

Juravin v. Ryan, 22-11356 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 2024)

Case Name

Juravin v. Ryan

Case Type

Business

Court

11th Circuit

Bankruptcy Tags

Court Administration

Practice and Procedure

Venue/Jurisdiction

Consumer Bankruptcy

Business Reorganization

Comments

Submitted by Robert Jacobvitz on November 12, 2024

The court applied judicial immunity not judicial estoppel. Judicial estoppel and judicial immunity are different doctrines. Re judicial estoppel, see for example, United States v. Ibrahim, 522 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir.2008) (“In deciding whether judicial estoppel should be applied, we typically consider three elements: “(1) whether a party's later position is ‘clearly inconsistent’ with its original position; (2) whether the party has successfully persuaded the court of the earlier position, and (3) whether allowing the inconsistent position would allow the party to ‘derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party.”).