James Patti v. Patricia Murray-Rapoza

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 2024-0061-Appeal.
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2024-61-Appeal. (KC 23-631)

James Patti :

v. :

Patricia Murray-Rapoza. :

ORDER

The plaintiff, James Patti, who appears pro se, appeals from a Superior Court

judgment in favor of the defendant, Patricia Murray-Rapoza, Esquire, following the

grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. This Court directed the parties to appear

and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily

decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and carefully

reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case

may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth

herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

On July 27, 2023, plaintiff filed the instant action for negligence and

professional malpractice against Attorney Murray-Rapoza, who was a court-

appointed guardian ad litem for plaintiff’s minor children during his divorce action.

The plaintiff alleges that, in her time as guardian ad litem, defendant lied in court,

engaged in professional misconduct, acted with an abject bias in favor of the

-1- children’s mother, and failed to recuse herself from the case despite a conflict of

interest with plaintiff over outstanding fees. The plaintiff seeks $4.5 million in

damages. The defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure based on G.L. 1956

§ 15-5-16.2(c)(1)(ix), which vests court-appointed guardians ad litem with quasi-

judicial immunity for acts performed within the scope of their duties as the guardian.

After a hearing, the Superior Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss with

prejudice and entered final judgment in her favor. The plaintiff filed a timely notice

of appeal on January 8, 2024.

Section 15-5-16.2(c)(1)(ix) provides that “[a] person serving as a guardian ad

litem under this section acts as the court’s agent and is entitled to quasi-judicial

immunity for acts performed within the scope of the duties of the guardian ad

litem[.]” In Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam), the United

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recognized absolute immunity for court-

appointed guardians ad litem, stating that such immunity “would fail to attach only

when such persons perform acts which are clearly outside the scope of their

jurisdiction.” Cok, 876 F.2d at 3.

Before this Court, plaintiff argues that the statutory immunity should not

apply because the alleged acts of perjury, extortion, child abuse, and conspiracy are

-2- outside the scope of the guardian’s duties. 1 However, upon a careful review of

plaintiff’s complaint, it is clear that all of the allegations therein arise from purported

actions taken by defendant while serving as an agent of the Family Court and

fulfilling her duties as the guardian ad litem. Indeed, the first paragraph of plaintiff’s

complaint states that he is bringing a civil claim against defendant for professional

malpractice and negligence in her service as guardian ad litem. This is precisely the

type of litigation from which the General Assembly sought to immunize court-

appointed guardians. See § 15-5-16.2(c)(1)(ix); see also Cok, 876 F.2d at 3

(“[A]llegations of malice, or bad faith or, as here, a claim of conspiracy will not

defeat the protection of derivative absolute immunity for actions taken pursuant to

court orders.”). As such, defendant was acting within the scope of her duties as the

guardian ad litem at all times relevant hereto and is therefore entitled to immunity.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The

record shall be returned to the Superior Court.

1 Notably, plaintiff neglected to state claims for extortion, child abuse, or conspiracy in his complaint and thus has not given fair and adequate notice of any such allegations, as required by the pleadings standard. See North Farm Home Owners Association, Inc. v. Bristol County Water Authority, 315 A.3d 933, 946 (R.I. 2024) (“Due process requires that [plaintiff’s] complaint give [defendant] ‘fair and adequate notice of the type of claim being asserted[.]’”) (quoting Hyatt v. Village House Convalescent Home, Inc., 880 A.2d 821, 824 (R.I. 2005)).

-3- Entered as an Order of this Court this day of January, 2025.

By Order,

_________________________ Clerk

-4- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case James Patti v. Patricia Murray-Rapoza.

No. 2024-61-Appeal. Case Number (KC 23-631)

Date Order Filed January 30, 2025

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Kent County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Kevin F. McHugh

For Plaintiff:

James Patti, Pro Se Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendant:

Kurt A. Rocha, Esq.

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)