Tom Hale v. Jim D. Pappas, Hon., Chief Bankr. Judge, 145 F.3d 1338 (9th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Tom Hale v. Jim D. Pappas, Hon., Chief Bankr. Judge, 145 F.3d 1338 (9th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we assume without deciding, that, although his motion for stay pending arbitration is not in the list of defenses that may be made by motion at 12(b), nevertheless, it is treated the same way, for purposes of delaying the need to file an answer.”
40 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Petefish Skiles & Co v. Meads-Maes USA Chiren Joint Venture Company (ilcd, 2025-09-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Petefish Skiles & Co v. Meads-Maes USA Chiren Joint Venture Company
C.D. Ill. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we assume without deciding, that, although his motion for stay pending arbitration is not in the list of defenses that may be made by motion at 12(b), nevertheless, it is treated the same way, for purposes of delaying the need to file an answer.
cited Cited "see" Keshish v. Allstate Insurance
C.D. Cal. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris v. Gates, 145 F.3d 1338 , 1998 WL 337954, *3 (9th Cir. May 26, 1998) (Unpub.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tom Hale
v.
Jim D. Pappas, Hon., Chief Bankruptcy Judge
97-35806.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 22, 1998.
145 F.3d 1338
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 77%
Citer courts: C.D. Illinois (1)

145 F.3d 1338

2 Cal. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 32

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Tom HALE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jim D. PAPPAS, Hon., Chief Bankruptcy Judge, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-35806.
D.C. No. CV-97-00119-tgn.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 1998[3].
Decided May 22, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho T.G. Nelson, Circuit Judge, Presiding[2].

Before SCHROEDER, TROTT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[1]

1

Tom Hale, an attorney appearing on his own behalf, appeals the district court's dismissal, based on absolute judicial immunity, of Hale's action against bankruptcy judge Jim Pappas. We agree with the district court that Judge Pappas's actions were not outside his jurisdiction, and that, accordingly, Hale's action for damages and prospective injunctive relief is barred by judicial immunity pursuant to Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir.1987).

2

AFFIRMED.

3

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

2

The Honorable T.G. Nelson, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation

1

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3