F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 26 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LINDSEY K. SPRINGER, dba
Bondage Breakers Ministries,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 98-5182
v. (D.C. No. 98-CV-299-K)
(N.D. Okla.)
THE INFINITY GROUP CO.;
ROBERT F. SANVILLE, individually
and as Trustee for Infinity Group Co.,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , BARRETT , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
In August 1997, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought a civil
enforcement action for securities violations in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against The Infinity Group Company (TIGC),
Geoffrey Benson and Geoffrey O’Connor, and named several “relief defendants,”
including Lindsey K. Springer. The court appointed Robert F. Sanville as trustee
for TIGC and directed him to assume control over TIGC’s assets and conduct an
accounting of its assets and investor proceeds. In February 1998, the court issued
its Order for Final Injunction, Disgorgement, and Other Relief, concluding that
TIGC, Benson and O’Connor had violated federal securities law and ordering
relief defendant Springer to disgorge $1.265 million. In its accompanying
memorandum, which the court stated constituted in part its findings of fact and
conclusion of law, the court held that TIGC had “defrauded [investors] for
defendants’ and relief defendants’ gain,” R. Vol. I, Doc. 3, Ex. C at 3-4, and that
Springer’s $1.265 million was “TIGC’s unlawfully-obtained investor funds, for
which [Springer] received no consideration at all and to which he has no
legitimate claim,” id. at 16. In its order, the court directed Sanville to notify all
existing TIGC investors of the terms of the court’s order and initiate claim
procedures.
Sanville sent a letter to potential TIGC investors explaining that “[i]t is my
unpleasant duty to inform you that the court has found that you were the victim of
-2-
a fraud.” Id. , Ex. D at 1. The letter further stated that “[t]he Court made the
following findings as part of its decision: . . . ‘Investors were defrauded for
defendants’ (TIGC, Benson and O’Connor) and relief defendants’ (Lindsey K.
Springer, d\b\a Bondage Breakers Ministries, Susan L. Benson, JGS Trust, SLB
Charitable Trust, and Futures Holding Company) personal gain.’” Id.
Claiming these statements were libelous and slanderous, Springer brought
this diversity action in the Northern District of Oklahoma against TIGC and
Springer. Adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court granted Sanville’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
and (6). The court held that under the doctrine of Barton v. Barbour , 104 U.S.
126 (1881), because Springer was suing Sanville for acts Sanville did in his
official capacity as trustee, he needed leave to proceed from the appointing court,
i.e., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which he did not have. See Allard v.
Weitzman (In re DeLorean Motor Co.) , 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993).
The court also held that Springer’s action did not fall within the exception to the
Barton doctrine provided by 28 U.S.C. § 959(a) because Sanville’s acts were not
performed in carrying out TIGC’s business. See In re DeLorean Motor Co. ,
991 F.2d at 1240-41. The court concluded that it therefore lacked jurisdiction.
Alternatively, the court held that Sanville was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity
because the acts of which Springer complains were taken in his capacity as
-3-
court-appointed trustee and at the direction of the Eastern District, and that
Springer therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
See Valdez v. City & County of Denver , 878 F.2d 1285, 1287-90 (10th Cir. 1989).
Springer appeals.
We review the district court’s dismissals under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6)
de novo. See Painter v. Shalala , 97 F.3d 1351, 1355 (10th Cir. 1996); Chemical
Weapons Working Group, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of the Army , 111 F.3d 1485,
1490 (10th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the record and fully considered
Springer’s arguments on appeal and find his arguments unpersuasive. We affirm
the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated in its order adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-4-