520 F. App'x 312
6th Cir.2013Background
- Kimberlin worked nine years as a repack order filler for Dollar General and was terminated on June 9, 2010.
- She alleges retaliation for reporting a supervisor's abusive conduct, seeking damages for a public-policy torture claim and related retaliation.
- Five years before termination, Kimberlin and spouse filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy; they did not amend schedules to disclose any potential employment claim.
- Bankruptcy plan confirmed July 2005; final plan payment made July 20, 2010; discharge Sept 7, 2010 and case closed Nov 24, 2010.
- Kimberlin filed suit in state court nearly a year after bankruptcy; Dollar General removed and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- District court granted judgment on the pleadings and applied judicial estoppel, also holding 4113.52 Ohio claims preempted and time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars the claim | Kimberlin asserts no bad faith; she lacked knowledge and motive to conceal. | Dollar General contends omission was intentional and prejudicial to estate. | Yes; judicial estoppel bars. |
| Whether Kimberlin had standing to sue or whether the case is disposed by Rule 17 / real-party-in-interest issue | Deserves standing to pursue the claim after bankruptcy. | Standing is in question; must be addressed under Rule 17 and related bankruptcy principles. | Court preserves jurisdiction and relies on estoppel; standing not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional injury; standing governs suitability)
- White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 617 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2010) (judicial estoppel framework and bad-faith omission considerations)
- Stephenson v. Malloy, 700 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2012) (trustee awareness as a factor in bad-faith inquiry)
- Eubanks v. CBSK Fin. Grp., Inc., 385 F.3d 894 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting duties to notify trustee and aspects of disclosure)
- In re Jones, 657 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2011) (complexity of bankruptcy-property allocation issues across circuits)