Lantz

Lantz v. Crate

Good Law
268 F. App'x 548
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 27, 2008No. 06-15792California737 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellants Bret A. Lantz, Hugh C. Lantz, and Janice E. Lantz (“the *550 Lantzes”) appeal the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), of their 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action against employees and members of the State of Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board. The district court dismissed all six counts in the complaint as to all defendants. We reverse and remand.

I

The district court erred in concluding that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity, a decision we review de novo. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 368 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004). “Under certain circumstances, absolute immunity is ... extended to agency representatives performing functions analogous to those of a prosecutor or a judge.” Id. at 923 . In calling the credit bureaus and informing them that the Lantzes were operating their business in violation of Nevada state law, Kreider was not acting as a prosecutor or a judge. At best, he was acting as an investigator. Thus, under the functional approach, id., Kreider is not entitled to the protections of absolute immunity.

II

The district court also erred in its alternative holding that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.

Lantz · Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · 2008 | Caselegis