Dante Combs v. The Cordish Companies, Inc.
862 F.3d 671
8th Cir.2017Background
- Combs and Williams, African American men, sued Cordish-related entities, Lounge KC (owner of Mosaic), and First Response under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging race-based efforts to exclude Black men from Kansas City’s Power & Light "LiveBlock." Three incidents form the basis: an August 2010 Maker’s Mark bar fight (Williams), early summer 2011 denial at Mosaic (Combs), and July 2011 ejection outside Tengo (Combs).
- Cordish developed and managed the District; LiveBlock has a common entrance with separate bouncers for individual venues. First Response provided security during part of the relevant period.
- Plaintiffs produced testimony alleging systemic tactics (dress-code enforcement, targeted questioning, false "overbooked" claims) and a specific "rabbit" scheme—recruiting white instigators to provoke Black patrons—based on testimony from a former security liaison and a self‑described recruiter.
- District court granted summary judgment to all defendants, holding Combs judicially estopped for failure to disclose claims in his Chapter 7 schedules and finding on the merits no triable issues except as to Lounge KC for the Mosaic incident. Combs reopened his bankruptcy after judgment and listed the claims; the trustee abandoned at least the Maker’s Mark claim.
- On appeal, the court held judicial estoppel improperly applied to claims arising after Combs filed Chapter 7 (Mosaic and Tengo), reversed summary judgment as to Cordish (and affirmed denial as to Lounge KC) on the Mosaic claim, and affirmed summary judgment on Williams’ Maker’s Mark claim, Combs’ Tengo claim, and First Response regarding Mosaic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Combs is judicially estopped for failing to list claims in Chapter 7 | Combs: Mosaic and Tengo incidents occurred after filing so were not estate assets and need not be scheduled | Cordish/Lounge KC: failure to disclose claims justifies estoppel based on precedent | Court: reversed estoppel for Mosaic and Tengo—post‑petition claims were not estate property under Chapter 7, so estoppel was improper |
| Whether Williams showed § 1981 discrimination for Maker's Mark incident | Williams: was targeted as part of Cordish's alleged "rabbit" scheme and broader exclusionary practices | Cordish: Williams was involved in a bar fight; evidence does not tie incident to the rabbit scheme or discriminatory policy at that time | Court: affirmed summary judgment for defendants on Maker's Mark—insufficient evidence Williams personally was targeted by rabbit scheme |
| Whether Combs showed § 1981 discrimination for Tengo incident | Combs: white assailant matched the rabbit pattern; ejection fits Cordish tactics | Cordish: facts do not match described rabbit practice; no evidence the assailant was a hired rabbit or that Cordish intervened | Court: affirmed summary judgment for defendants on Tengo—insufficient evidence he was targeted by the rabbit scheme |
| Whether Combs raised triable § 1981 claims for being denied entry to Mosaic and whether Cordish/First Response are liable | Combs: denial at Mosaic was discriminatory and tied to Cordish’s exclusionary tactics; First Response provided security and participated | Cordish: no evidence linking Cordish to the specific denial; First Response: no proof its guards were the ones involved | Court: reversed summary judgment as to Cordish on Mosaic (genuine issue re: Cordish-directed tactics); affirmed denial as to First Response (no proof its guards involved); Lounge KC (owner) already found to have triable issue and not appealed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 811 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir.) (discusses judicial estoppel review and factors)
- Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir.) (judicial estoppel protects judicial integrity; outlines doctrine)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S.) (establishes framework for judicial estoppel factors)
- Harris v. Viegelahn, 135 S. Ct. 1829 (U.S.) (distinguishes Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 estate property scope)
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (U.S.) (§ 1981 protects would-be contractors; claim accrual principles)
- Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc., 565 F.3d 464 (8th Cir.) (elements for § 1981 retail‑transaction claims)