 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp.11/12/1998
btor] on judicial estoppel grounds." (Ryan, supra, 81 F.3d at p. 364-365.)
In concluding, the Ryan court stated its "belief that judicial estoppel is an `extraordinary remed to be invoked when a party's inconsistent behavior will otherwise result in a miscarriage of Justice.' Oneida, 848 F.2d at 424 (Stapleton, J., Dissenting). It is not meant to be a technical defense for litigants seeking to derail potentially meritorious claims, especially when the alleged inconsistency is insignificant at best and there is no evidence of intent to manipulate or mislead the courts. Judicial estoppel is not a sword to be wielded by adversaries unless such tactics are necessary to `secure substantial equity.'" (Ryan, supra, 81 F.3d at p. 365.) Thus the same court that pioneered the application of judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context with the seminal Oneida case later was anxious to limit the scope of the Oneida ruling, even to the extent of quoting with approval from the Dissent in Oneida. Clearly, "judicial estoppel" is a concept to be applied with restraint in egregious cases only and with clear regard for the facts of the particular case.
d. The factual determinations necessary to support application of judicial estoppel could not be made on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
As noted, the judgment here on appeal resulted from a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code of Civ. Proc. ยง 438(c) subd. (1)(B).) The motion relied "entirely on the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint and documents from Plaintiff's bankruptcy proceeding." As the above Discussion makes clear, Northrop's effort to invoke judicial estoppel to bar plaintiff's claims raised factual issues which could not be answered by exclusive reference to plaintiff's complaint and plaintiff's bankruptcy filings, and hence could not be determined on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Accord, In re Envirodyne Industries, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 1995) 183 B.R. 812, 824 [finding of intentional wrongdoing cannot be made on motion for judgment on the pleadings, hence decision cannot be made to apply judicial estoppel on motion for judgment on the pleadings].) Cases concerning judicial estoppel have generally been decided after a fact-finding or evidence-reviewing proceeding of some sort. (See, e.g., Conrad, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th 133 [judgment notwithstanding the verdict after trial]; Billmeyer, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th 1086 [summary judgment]; Hay, supra, 978 F.2d 555 [summary judgment]; Baudoin, supra, 981 F.2d 736 [injunction and summary judgment]; Ryan, supra, 81 F.3d 355 [summary judgment]; International Engine, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th 345 [summary judgment]; cf. Oneida, supra, 848 F.2d 414, fn. 3 [discussing whether summary judgment motion was required, finding material facts undisputed in any event]; see also Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171 [judicial estoppel applied by summary judgment in employment context].)
As stated in Ryan, nondisclosure in bankruptcy filings, standing alone, is insufficient to support the finding of bad faith intent necessary for the application of judicial estoppel. Yet nondisclosure, and nothing more, is all that could be established in this case by a review limited to plaintiff's complaint plus her bankruptcy filings. The Ryan court looked for "evidence that [the debtor] acted in bad faith." (Ryan, supra, 81 F.3d at p. 362, italics added.) Ryan stated that judicial estoppel applies only when the debtor engages in a an effort to obtain "unfair advantage" and engages in a "scheme to mislead the court," that any inconsistencies in the debtor's position must be "attributable to intentional wrongdoing" and "`tantamount to a knowing misrepresentation to or even fraud on th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|