Reported / Citable
Background
In September 2021, the State filed a felony complaint against Simon Semaan alleging insurance-rate-fraud counts under Insurance Code section 11760, subdivision (a). The State simultaneously sought ex parte to preserve assets subject to levy under Penal Code section 186.11. The criminal court issued a temporary restraining order and appointed Robert P. Mosier and Mosier & Company as receiver. The TRO listed certain TDAmeritrade investment accounts that were excluded from the seizure, but later the criminal court ordered Mosier to liquidate stock holdings into cash.
Mosier did not immediately liquidate. He filed a second petition for instructions explaining that TDAmeritrade required closure procedures that would, in his view, impose unacceptable personal-tax consequences on the receiver. The criminal court relieved Mosier and appointed a successor.
Simon Semaan and his family members later sued Mosier and his firm in a separate civil action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty for failing to liquidate. Mosier filed an anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court first held that the plaintiffs’ claims arose out of constitutionally protected activity under section 425.16(e)(4) — specifically, statements and conduct undertaken in connection with the criminal court’s receivership proceedings. The plaintiffs forfeited any contrary argument by failing to develop it on appeal.
On the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had the minimal merit required to survive the motion. Court-appointed receivers are protected by quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions made within the scope of their court-conferred authority. Mosier’s decisions about how and when to liquidate the accounts — including his concerns about personal tax exposure if he became the beneficial owner of the accounts under TDAmeritrade’s procedures — were discretionary judgments made in his receiver role.
Because Mosier was immune from suit for those discretionary decisions, the plaintiffs could not establish a probability of prevailing, and the anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted.
Key Takeaways
- Court-appointed receivers in California are protected by quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions made within their court-conferred authority.
- Anti-SLAPP motions can be effective tools for receivers facing breach-of-fiduciary-duty or related civil claims arising from their receivership conduct.
- Receivership conduct constitutes ‘protected activity’ under section 425.16(e)(4) when it occurs in connection with court proceedings.
- Plaintiffs suing receivers must show that the challenged conduct was outside the receiver’s discretionary authority or was undertaken in bad faith — a high bar.
- Receivers facing potential personal liability or tax exposure from compliance with court orders should seek further instructions from the appointing court rather than acting unilaterally.
Why It Matters
For California’s receivership practice — including criminal asset-preservation receiverships under Penal Code section 186.11, civil receiverships under Code of Civil Procedure section 564 et seq., and bankruptcy-related receiverships — this decision is meaningful protection. Receivers can perform their court-conferred duties with confidence that they will not be subject to second-guessing civil litigation by parties who disagree with their discretionary decisions.
For plaintiffs considering suit against receivers, the case underscores that anti-SLAPP motions will be a near-immediate procedural challenge. Such suits should be reserved for clear cases where the receiver acted outside the scope of authority or in clear bad faith. For receivers, the practical lesson is to document the basis for discretionary decisions thoroughly and to seek court instructions when faced with novel or risky compliance issues — a step that creates both protection and a record supporting later anti-SLAPP defenses.