## Facts

- Jerome S. Wagshal sued Charles E. Sheetz in D.C. Superior Court over management of Wagshal’s real property.
- The trial judge referred the case to the court’s Rule 16 alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program; participation was mandatory but nonbinding absent agreement to binding arbitration.
- The judge appointed Mark W. Foster as a “neutral case evaluator.”
- The parties executed a written understanding that the proceedings were confidential and privileged and that the evaluator could not be subpoenaed or voluntarily testify.
- After an initial session, Wagshal questioned Foster’s neutrality; Foster required Wagshal to waive the objection or pursue it by a deadline.
- Foster, receiving neither a waiver nor a clear election, sent the judge a letter (copied to counsel) recusing himself, summarizing the process, and recommending continued ADR, including an order requiring Wagshal to make a good-faith attempt at mediation.
- The judge held a hearing, formally excused Foster, and appointed a new neutral; Wagshal did not object or seek the judge’s recusal.
- The underlying case later settled with the new neutral.
- Wagshal then sued Foster in federal district court for damages, alleging Foster’s conduct, especially the recusal letter, pressured him into an unfavorable settlement.
- The district court dismissed, holding Foster was absolutely immune as a court-appointed neutral; Wagshal appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a court-appointed mediator or neutral case evaluator in a court-annexed ADR program is entitled to absolute immunity from damages for acts within the scope of official ADR duties.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal.
- The court held that a court-appointed mediator/neutral case evaluator is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for conduct within the scope of court-delegated ADR functions.
- Foster’s challenged actions—handling the neutrality objection, recusing, and communicating recommendations to the judge about further ADR and good-faith participation—fell within that scope.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute immunity turns on function, not job title; nonjudicial officials performing tasks closely associated with the judicial process may receive quasi-judicial immunity.
- Court-annexed settlement and ADR efforts can be part of judicial case management; a court-appointed neutral assisting that process acts as a court adjunct similar to special masters, referees, or court-appointed arbitrators.
- Policy justifications for absolute immunity apply to court-appointed neutrals: preserving independence and neutrality, preventing collateral damages suits by dissatisfied litigants, and supporting effective operation of confidential court ADR programs.
- Immunity extends only to acts within the mediator’s official duties in the court program; alleged coercion or pressure does not defeat immunity when the conduct is of the type the role contemplates.

## Conclusion

The court held that a court-appointed neutral case evaluator/mediator is absolutely immune from damages for actions taken within official court-annexed ADR responsibilities, and it affirmed dismissal of the disappointed litigant’s suit.


Wagshal v. Foster, 28 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1994)