Derived Judicial Immunity Shields Receiver but Not Receiver-Created Entities at Rule 91a Stage
Read the Court's Opinion (PDF)
Judge Brian Stagner
In Fischer v. Fischer, Division 8 of the Business Court of Texas granted derived judicial immunity to a court-appointed receiver who facilitated the sale of community property companies under a receivership order later vacated on appeal. The court denied Rule 91a dismissal for Fischer Seller, LP and Fischer Purchaser Holdings, LP, holding that the pleadings did not establish facts sufficient to extend immunity to these entities at the pleading stage.
Court Staff Summary
The parties divorced and a court-appointed receiver split their community property by selling companies they had owned and equity interests in the companies. The receiver has received judicial immunity to claims that his sale damaged one spouse and the company. After the sale, an appellate court vacated the receivership order. But the receiver retains his received judicial immunity. The receiver created two entities to assist in the sale. The Court denies a motion to dismiss claims against those entities under Rule 91a because the Petition does not supply the facts needed to conclusively establish that immunity applies to them.
Background: Post-Divorce Receivership and Contested Sale
This case arises from the dissolution of a marriage involving community property interests in Clifford R. Fischer & Company and related entities. Following the October 2019 divorce decree, the 254th District Court of Dallas County ordered the companies sold with proceeds divided equally between Gail Corder Fischer and Clifford R. Fischer. In April 2024, the district court appointed Michael Newman as a receiver to facilitate the sale of the companies and the parties' equity interests in them. Plaintiff appealed the receivership appointment to the Dallas Court of Appeals.
On December 9, 2025, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the Receivership Order. In a substituted opinion issued January 15, 2026, the appellate court concluded that the order impermissibly altered the divorce decree's property division and was therefore beyond the District Court's enforcement powers. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit, and the Receiver Parties—Newman, Fischer Seller, LP, and Fischer Purchaser Holdings, LP—moved to dismiss under Rule 91a.
The Court's Immunity Ruling
The Business Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court concluded that plaintiff's own allegations establish that Newman is protected by derived judicial immunity. Newman had been appointed by the District Court and acted to facilitate the court-ordered sale of the companies.
However, the court drew a critical distinction regarding the two entity defendants:
Those same allegations, however, do not supply the facts necessary to extend that immunity to Fischer Seller or Fischer Purchaser at the pleading stage.
The court granted dismissal as to Newman based on derived judicial immunity, but denied the Rule 91a motion as to Fischer Seller, LP and Fischer Purchaser Holdings, LP, finding that the pleadings did not establish the factual basis for extending immunity to these entities.