United States Ninth Circuit

In an action to recover payment for medical care provided to prisoners, the removal of the action to the district court is affirmed where the suit was against a federally-appointed receiver and the district court thus had clear jurisdiction over the matter. However, the order dismissing the action is vacated where: 1) plaintiff was not required to obtain permission from the district court to sue defendant-receiver because the action fit within the statutory exception to the general rule requiring an appointing court's permission before suing a receiver in another jurisdiction; and 2) the receiver was not absolutely immune from suit.

Appellate Information

• Argued 07/16/2009
• Decided 10/30/2009
• Published 10/30/2009

Judges

• CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:, Before:  BARRY G. SILVERMAN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Bennett J. Lee (argued) and Garrett E. Dillon, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Michelle M. Mitchell (argued), Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for appellee California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;  Martin H. Dodd(argued), Futterman & Dupree LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the appellee J. Clark Kelso, as Receiver;  John W. Fowler, Bergeson, LLP, San Jose, CA, for appellee Robert Sillen.