actors who cannot be sued without the plaintiff first obtaining leave of the bankruptcy court. Lawrence v. Goldberg, 573 F.3d 1265, 1269-70 (11th Cir. 2009). In Barton, the Supreme Court recognized that the doctrine does not apply to acts a trastee performs in excess of his authority. Barton, 104 U.S. at 134. We have held that “court-appointed receivers ... enjoy judicial immunity for acts within the scope of their authority ... [which] extends to carrying out faithfully and carefully the orders of the appointing judge,” and that, by analogy, court-appointed bankruptcy trustees are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity where they act “under the supervision and subject to the orders of the bankruptcy judge.” Prop. Mgmt. & Invs., Inc. v. Lewis, 752 F.2d 599, 602 (11th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); Boullion v. McClanahan, 639 F.2d 213, 214
holding that a receiver was immune from a suit alleging defamation conversion and embezzlement arising out of the course of administering the receivership holding that titere is a significant distinction between fdic in its corporate capacity and its receivership capacity where fdic acts as a receiver it is not immune from prejudgment interest holding that the company administering a selfinsurance program for the department of transportation was an agent for the department and was therefore immune from suit holding state immune from suit brought in state court holding state immune from suit involving a federal question