Lueders v. Arp
321 F. Supp. 3d 968
D. Neb.2018Background
- Lueders was involved in two collisions: a March 4, 2011 crash with a Leavitts Freight truck and a July 15, 2012 rear-end collision with a National Guard tractor-trailer.
- He sued Leavitts in state court (alleging shoulder injury from the Leavitts accident), was deposed in that case, and testified he did not believe the National Guard accident exacerbated his shoulder.
- The Leavitts case settled and was dismissed with prejudice.
- Lueders later filed an FTCA claim and sued the United States for injuries he attributes (in part) to the National Guard accident, alleging additional shoulder injury and surgery.
- The United States moved to dismiss or for summary judgment arguing Lueders is estopped (judicial estoppel and quasi‑estoppel) from claiming the National Guard caused injury; Lueders opposed and submitted evidence disputing estoppel and asserting evidentiary objections.
- The court concluded the driver and the Army National Guard were improper defendants (only the United States is proper) but denied estoppel-based dismissal, finding neither judicial estoppel nor quasi-estoppel applicable on the present record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non‑United States defendants remain | Lueders did not oppose dismissal of the driver/National Guard | United States: federal employer immunity requires substitution of the United States under FTCA | Court: dismissed driver and Army National Guard; United States is sole proper defendant |
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Lueders' FTCA claim | Lueders: deposition testimony in Leavitts case was incomplete/without full medical info; no bad faith | United States: Lueders previously asserted injuries from Leavitts and thus cannot now claim National Guard caused them | Court: judicial estoppel inapplicable—no judicial acceptance of inconsistent position (settlement) and no clear evidence of bad faith |
| Whether quasi‑estoppel bars the claim | Lueders: accepted Leavitts settlement did not preclude later claim for additional/aggravated injury; medical evidence supports partial aggravation only | United States: settlement/earlier testimony precludes inconsistent claim against it | Court: quasi‑estoppel inapplicable—doctrine normally requires mutuality/privity or acceptance of benefits inconsistent with later claim; facts do not show unconscionability |
| Admissibility of evidence of Leavitts settlement at summary judgment | Lueders: Rule 408 and hearsay/irrelevance/Rule 403 bar use of settlement evidence | United States: evidence relevant to estoppel claims and admissible for non‑liability purpose; court documents establish settlement | Court: overruled objections—Rule 408 not applicable to settlement of different claim, statements could be presented at trial in admissible form, and probative value outweighs prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Perpich v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 496 U.S. 334 (recognizing National Guard as component of Army of the United States) (affirmed lower court opinion)
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (federal entities and officials immune from certain suits; suits against agencies vs. United States)
- Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301 (FTCA liability determined by law of place where act or omission occurred)
- Loge v. United States, 662 F.2d 1268 (discussing law of place governing FTCA claims)
- Vowers & Sons, Inc. v. Strasheim, 254 Neb. 506 (judicial estoppel requires prior court acceptance of the earlier position)
- Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 291 Neb. 278 (judicial estoppel applied cautiously; requires bad faith or intent to mislead)