Maida Dzakula v. John McHugh
746 F.3d 399
9th Cir.2014Background
- Maida Dzakula appeals the district court’s dismissal of her employment-discrimination action as barred by judicial estoppel.
- Dzakula filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy but did not list the pending lawsuit as an asset initially.
- Defendant moved to dismiss, prompting Dzakula to amend bankruptcy schedules to include the action; the bankruptcy court discharged debts and closed the case.
- The district court held the omission was not inadvertent and applied New Hampshire v. Maine factors to conclude judicial estoppel barred the action.
- After Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Department of Transportation (9th Cir. 2013) was decided, supplemental briefing occurred, with the court distinguishing Ah Quin and relying on the present record.
- On appeal, Dzakula did not provide evidence explaining the initial omission; the court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the omission of the asset was inadvertent or mistaken | Dzakula contends the omission was inadvertent | McHugh argues the omission was not inadvertent | Not inadvertent; estoppel affirmed |
| Whether Ah Quin governs this case | Ah Quin requires an evidentiary inquiry into inadvertence | Ah Quin is distinguishable; no hearing required here | Ah QuinDistinguishable; no helpful departure from record |
| Whether the district court properly applied the New Hampshire factors | Court abused discretion in applying factors | Factors support estoppel under Hamilton | No abuse; factors support estoppel |
| Whether the record supports judicial estoppel given amendment timing | Amendment timing suggests possible inadvertence | Timing supports an inconsistent position and unfair advantage | Record supports estoppel |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (three-factor test for judicial estoppel)
- Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2001) (reasons to apply judicial estoppel; factors framework)
- Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Department of Transportation, 733 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 2013) (clarifies inadvertence standard and evidentiary development; distinguishable from present case)
- O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (to the waiver of arguments not raised below)