Where a complaint was filed alleging that the defendant, a receiver appointed to manage a senior-living and memory-care facility, conspired with others to carry out a “resident dumping” scheme, the receiver is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because its acts were judicial in nature and not taken in the absence of all jurisdiction.
“This interlocutory appeal concerns whether a court-appointed receiver is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Specifically, whether quasi-judicial immunity bars claims based on allegations that the receiver, appointed to manage a senior-living and memory-care facility, carried out a ‘resident dumping’ scheme that led to residents’ wrongful removal. Sue T. Frost formerly was a resident of Wood Haven Senior Living (‘Wood Haven’), which operated as a memory-care facility in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. She alleged that Wood Haven’s court-appointed receiver, Defendant KCP Advisory Group, LLC (‘KCP’), conspired with other named defendants to unlawfully evict residents from the facility, including Frost. To execute the scheme, defendants falsely claimed that the Tewksbury Fire Department had ordered an emergency evacuation of the facility.
“After she was transferred to a different facility, Frost sued KCP in federal court in the District of Massachusetts. KCP moved to dismiss the counts brought against it, arguing, in part, that it was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The district court granted in part and denied in part KCP’s motion. KCP appeals that order, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that immunity did not bar all of Frost’s counts against KCP. Because we conclude that quasi-judicial immunity does bar each of Frost’s claims against KCP, we reverse the portion of the district court’s judgment denying KCP’s motion to dismiss Counts II, VI, VII, XI, and XIII. …
“… On appeal, KCP accordingly argues it is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because it contends that its acts were judicial in nature and not taken in the absence of all jurisdiction. Because we conclude, for reasons we will explain, that KCP is entitled to immunity on this basis, we do not address whether KCP would be entitled to the type of quasi-judicial immunity that attaches to parties carrying out court orders. …
“… Here, each of KCP’s alleged acts of malfeasance relate to its effort to remove residents from an unsafe facility subject to a receivership. That function, we think, is comparable to a court exercising its equitable powers to take control of a distressed asset and conducting an analogous evacuation due to unsafe conditions. …
“Because the underlying function served by KCP’s specific alleged acts was judicial in nature, and because KCP did not act in absence of jurisdiction, KCP is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as to counts arising from those acts. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of KCP’s motion to dismiss as to Counts II, VI, VII, XI, and XIII. Each party shall bear their own appellate costs and fees.”
Suny v. KCP Advisory Group, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-176-25) (14 pages) (Montecalvo, J.) Appealed from a decision by Saris, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Nicole L. Carnevale, with whom Allen N. David and Peabody & Arnold were on brief, for the defendant-appellant; David R. Suny, with whom McCormack Suny, LLC was on brief, for the plaintiff-appellee (Docket No. 23-1800) (Aug. 19, 2025).