Eunice Esparza v. Costco, Inc.
1:10-cv-05406
N.D. Ill.Dec 28, 2011Background
- Esparza, a former Costco employee, sues Costco for national origin discrimination under Title VII.
- Costco seeks to amend defenses to raise judicial estoppel and moves for summary judgment based on lack of standing.
- Esparza filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in June 2010, later converting to Chapter 7 in November 2010; her schedules listed no claims like this discrimination suit.
- Esparza did not disclose the discrimination claim in bankruptcy filings prior to discharge, which occurred in February 2011.
- In June 2011 Esparza filed an amended Statement of Financial Affairs disclosing the Costco claim; the court later granted summary judgment against her.
- The court grants Costco’s motion to amend its affirmative defenses and its summary judgment motion, and denies Esparza’s other motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue in bankruptcy context | Esparza should retain standing despite bankruptcy. | Estate owns the claim; Esparza lacks standing once bankruptcy filed. | Esparza lacks standing; estate owns the claim, requiring dismissal. |
| Judicial estoppel applicability | Debtor should be able to reopen or amend disclosures. | Omission of the claim was deceptive and bars recovery. | Judicial estoppel applies; claims are barred from recovery. |
| Amendment of affirm. defenses and related matters | N/A | N/A | Grant of amendment to defenses granted; other motions denied. |
| Dispositive management of related motions | N/A | N/A | Esparza’s motions to reconsider and to amend other claims denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Yonikus, 996 F.2d 866 (7th Cir. 1993) (bankruptcy property includes causes of action under §541)
- Cable v. Ivy Tech State College, 200 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 1999) (trustee capacity and standing in bankruptcy actions)
- Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2006) (judicial estoppel in bankruptcy context; effect of concealment)
- Eastman v. Union Pac. R. Co., 493 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) (judicial estoppel and disclosure failures in bankruptcy)
- Krystal Cadillac-Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 337 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2003) (bankruptcy disclosure and estoppel principles)
- Biesek v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 440 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2006) (standing and real party in interest in bankruptcy context)