California Legal Brief

The Rule of Semaan v. Mosier is that a court-appointed receiver is protected by quasi-judicial immunity for the receiver's discretionary acts and decisions made in their capacity as receiver, under circumstances where the receiver must exercise discretionary judgment in fulfilling court orders.

Appeal from order granting anti-SLAPP motion in Superior Court, Orange County.

Defendants/Respondents were Robert P. Mosier and Mosier & Company, Inc. — court-appointed receiver and his company who failed to liquidate investment accounts when ordered by the criminal court.

Plaintiffs/Appellants were Simon Semaan et al. — criminal defendant and his family members whose investment accounts lost value while under receivership.

The suit sounded in breach of fiduciary duty against the court-appointed receiver.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were: In September 2021, the State filed a felony complaint against plaintiff Simon Semaan for insurance fraud. The criminal court appointed Mosier as receiver and issued a temporary restraining order freezing assets. On December 7, 2021, the court ordered the receiver to liquidate all stock holdings "as soon as practicable" and hold cash pending further court order. Mosier failed to liquidate the accounts, citing concerns about TDAmeritrade's requirements and ongoing settlement negotiations. On February 3, 2022, Mosier was relieved as receiver. Plaintiffs alleged damages of $1,180,854.95 from the reduction in account value between December 8, 2021 and February 3, 2022.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, ruling that Plaintiffs' claims arose out of protected activity and that Plaintiffs had not shown their claims had requisite minimum merit because Mosier was protected by quasi-judicial immunity and the litigation privilege.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether Plaintiffs' claims against the court-appointed receiver arose out of constitutionally protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute 2. Whether the court-appointed receiver was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for his discretionary decisions regarding liquidation of investment accounts

The Appellate Court held that court-appointed receivers are protected by quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions made in their capacity as receiver, and that determining when it was "practicable" to liquidate accounts pursuant to a court order requiring liquidation "as soon as practicable" was a discretionary decision requiring the receiver to exercise judgment based on circumstances presented.

The case is inapplicable when the receiver's conduct involves nondiscretionary, ministerial acts, intentional misconduct such as self-dealing, or acts not taken in the receiver's quasi-judicial capacity or in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

The case leaves open whether court-appointed receivers would also enjoy immunity under Government Code section 820.2, and the precise boundaries of what constitutes discretionary versus ministerial acts for receivers in different factual contexts.