Jerome S. Wagshal v. Mark W. Foster
28 F.3d 1249, 307 U.S. App. D.C. 382 (1994)
Rule of Law:
A court-appointed mediator or neutral case evaluator performing tasks within the scope of their official duties is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages lawsuits brought by litigants.
Facts:
- Jerome S. Wagshal was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Charles E. Sheetz in D.C. Superior Court.
- The presiding judge referred the case to mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and appointed Mark W. Foster as a neutral case evaluator.
- The parties, including Wagshal, signed a "statement of understanding" stipulating that the proceedings would be confidential and that Foster would serve as a neutral party.
- During the evaluation, Wagshal raised an objection concerning Foster's neutrality.
- In response, Foster recused himself and sent a letter to the judge, with copies to counsel, reporting on his efforts and recommending that the court order Wagshal to engage in a good faith attempt at mediation.
- Foster's letter also suggested the judge consider who should bear the defendant’s costs for the mediation.
- Following these events, Wagshal and the other parties settled the underlying lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Wagshal sued Foster and his law firm partners in U.S. District Court, alleging constitutional violations and various torts and seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Foster was protected by absolute immunity.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.
- Wagshal, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court-appointed mediator or neutral case evaluator have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a damages lawsuit for actions taken within the scope of their official duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge
Yes, a court-appointed mediator or neutral case evaluator is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. This immunity is justified because mediators perform functions integral to the judicial process. Applying a three-factor test, the court found that: (1) a mediator's functions, such as identifying issues and facilitating settlement, are comparable to a judge's case-management duties and involve substantial discretion; (2) mediators are likely to be targets of harassment by disappointed litigants who are barred from suing the judge; and (3) adequate procedural safeguards exist, such as the ability of a litigant to complain to the appointing judge or seek the judge's recusal. The court concluded that Foster’s actions, including writing the recusal letter, were part of the general function of a case evaluator and were not taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction, thus falling within the scope of this immunity.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the protective doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity to non-judicial officers like mediators and case evaluators involved in court-ordered ADR. It solidifies the functional approach to immunity, focusing on the nature of the tasks performed rather than the official's title. By shielding neutrals from the threat of damages lawsuits, the ruling strengthens the integrity and viability of ADR programs, as it encourages individuals to serve in these roles without fear of reprisal from dissatisfied parties. However, it also limits the remedies available to litigants who believe a neutral's misconduct harmed their case, directing them toward procedural remedies within the existing litigation rather than a separate civil action for damages.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Jerome S. Wagshal v. Mark W. Foster (1994)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"