John Ramirez, as Elder of Wat Khmer Vipassanaram v. David J. Pasternak;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN RAMIREZ, as Elder of Wat Khmer
Vipassanaram and president of Khmer
Buddhist Association, the Spiritual Entity;
et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DAVID J. PASTERNAK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-56034
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00245-DOC-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing their civil
rights action and awarding Rule 11 sanctions to court-appointed receiver David J.
FILED
JAN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-56034 2
Pasternak. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, New Alaska Dev. Corp. v.
Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1300 (9th Cir. 1989), and for abuse of discretion the
award of Rule 11 sanctions, Buster v. Greisen, 104 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir.
1997). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against Pasternak
because the state court acted within its judicial discretion in appointing Pasternak
as receiver, was not itself acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, and
Pasternak was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions undertaken
in his capacity as receiver that were “functionally comparable to those of judges.”
Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002); see also
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (“A judge will not be deprived of
immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted
in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”) (citation omitted); New Alaska Dev., 869
F.2d at 1303-04 & n.6 (concluding that state court-appointed receiver was entitled
to absolute immunity for allegedly mismanaging company assets).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions
to Pasternak based on its conclusion that plaintiffs’ complaint was frivolous. See

-- 2 of 3 --

09-56034 3
Buster, 104 F.3d at 1190 (“Frivolous filings are those that are both baseless and
made without a reasonable and competent inquiry.”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --