Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Department of Transportation, 733 F.3d 267

Ah Quin sued Kauai County Department of Transportation for gender discrimination; district court later granted summary judgment based on judicial estoppel due to bankruptcy nondisclosure.
Ah Quin filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on April 4, 2009 and initially listed no pending lawsuits; court discharged on September 1, 2009.
She later amended bankruptcy schedules to disclose the discrimination action after her attorney learned of the bankruptcy’s potential impact.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on judicial-estoppel grounds; district court granted it, concluding nondisclosure was not inadvertent.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded to apply a correct standard, noting the district court used too narrow a view of inadvertence/mistake.
Trustee later abandoned the discrimination claim; bankruptcy case was closed; the appeal proceeded on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether misclassification of inadvertence/mistake was correct	Ah Quin argues standard was too narrow	Kauai contends omission not inadvertent under applicable rule	Remand for correct standard; not decided on merits
Impact of reopening/amending bankruptcy on estoppel	Reopening/refiling cures error; estoppel should not apply	Reopening does not negate estoppel analysis	Court to consider after applying proper standard
Whether Ah Quin’s omission was inadvertent or deceitful	Evidence supports inadvertence	Evidence supports deceit	Remand to assess intent under ordinary understanding of mistake/inadvertence
Effect of trustee abandoning the claim	Abandonment should not bar suit if estopped	Trustee abandonment affects equities	Remand to evaluate under proper standard; not final on abandonment alone
Whether district court’s earlier ruling was reversible error	Error in applying wrong legal standard; vacate	Stand by estoppel ruling if appropriate	Vacate and remand for correct legal standard

New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court 2001) (judicial estoppel aims to protect judicial integrity; inadvertence possible)
Eastman v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 493 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) (narrow view of inadvertence in bankruptcy context)
Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2002) (inadvertence/mistake analysis in bankruptcy)
Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 848 F.2d 414 (3d Cir. 1988) (importance of full disclosure; informs estoppel rationale)
Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 1996) (emphasizes disclosure importance; cautions against broad nondisclosure rule)
Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 270 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2001) (estoppel grounded in knowledge of claim; discusses reopening irrelevance context)
Hay v. First Interstate Bank of Kalispell, N.A., 978 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1992) (prior bankruptcy-disclosure duty and estoppel grounding)
Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2006) (trustee abandonment context and debtor eligibility to pursue claim)
Biesek v. Soo Line Railroad Co., 440 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2006) (discussion of deterrence and bankruptcy disclosure in estoppel)