Richards v. State of California, 2:15-cv-00009

Background

Plaintiff Elsiddig Elhindi filed an EEOC harassment charge in Jan. 2011 and later received a right-to-sue letter in Feb. 2014; he filed this discrimination lawsuit on Dec. 31, 2014.
Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in May 2011 and answered “None” to a schedule question seeking contingent/unliquidated claims; the bankruptcy was discharged Sept. 9, 2011.
Defendant CDCR moved for summary judgment arguing judicial estoppel because plaintiff did not list the EEOC claim in his bankruptcy schedules.
After the motion was filed, plaintiff’s current counsel contacted the bankruptcy trustee and the bankruptcy case was reopened to correct the schedules.
Plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration that the omission was inadvertent due to misunderstanding of the forms and language barriers; he had separate counsel in the bankruptcy and contends that counsel did not review the schedules with him.
The court construed the evidence in plaintiff’s favor, found factual disputes about subjective intent, declined to apply the presumption of deceit, and denied summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial estoppel bars the discrimination suit because plaintiff omitted the claim from bankruptcy schedules	Elhindi says omission was inadvertent/mistaken (language barrier, misunderstood forms) and he reopened bankruptcy to correct it	CDCR argues omission shows deceit and estoppel should bar the suit under the bankruptcy default rule	Denied — genuine dispute on subjective intent and reopened bankruptcy preclude applying default estoppel on summary judgment
Whether the default presumption of deceit applies after a discharged bankruptcy	Plaintiff: presumption doesn’t apply where bankruptcy is reopened and plaintiff shows inadvertence	Defendant: presumption should apply; omission indicates intent to conceal	Held: Reopening bankruptcy and plaintiff’s declaration means presumption of deceit does not automatically apply
Whether plaintiff’s affidavit is a sham contradicted by deposition or other record	Plaintiff: affidavit credible and consistent; deposition excerpts do not blatantly contradict affidavit	Defendant: deposition testimony suggests plaintiff understood EEOC/right-to-sue process	Held: Court finds deposition excerpts do not blatantly contradict affidavit; affidavit must be credited at summary judgment
Whether further factual development (hearing) is required on subjective intent	Plaintiff: record sufficient and bankruptcy reopened; no hearing necessary	Defendant: factual issues exist warranting further inquiry	Held: No evidentiary hearing required; record sufficiently shows inadvertence and court declines to invoke judicial estoppel

Key Cases Cited

New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel is equitable and discretionary; prevents shifting positions to suit exigencies)
Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Dep’t of Transp., 733 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 2013) (default estoppel rule may be rebutted where debtor reopens bankruptcy and shows omission was inadvertent; inquiry focuses on subjective intent)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (evidence construed in favor of the nonmoving party; reasonable inferences drawn for nonmovant)
Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2001) (three-factor test for judicial estoppel application)