Rodriguez-Torres v. GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT BANK
750 F. Supp. 2d 407
D.P.R.2010Background
- Plaintiffs Vicky Rodriguez-Torres and spouse filed a multi-claim complaint against GDB and Camba-Casas on Nov 25, 2009, alleging retaliation, due process, privacy, and tort theories.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of judicial estoppel stemming from Rodriguez's failure to disclose this case in her bankruptcy filings.
- Plaintiffs filed an informative motion admitting counsel's nondisclosure to the Bankruptcy Court and noting Rodriguez sought to have the Trustee appear as real party in interest.
- Rodriguez filed a Chapter 7 petition on Dec 19, 2009; her SOFA and schedules were filed Jan 9-11, 2010, listing other assets but not this case's claims.
- Amended bankruptcy schedules were filed Feb 15, 2010 still omitting the claims; the Bankruptcy Court discharged debts on May 26, 2010 under a no-assets-distribution premise.
- The court granted summary judgment, dismissing Rodriguez's claims with prejudice, and later held derivative state-law claims also fail because the underlying federal claims were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez is judicially estopped from pursuing this case | Non-disclosure was not intentional; potential verbal disclosure to Trustee; amendments cured later. | Nondisclosure constitutes palpable fraud; estoppel applies to bar claims. | Yes; claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether subsequent amendments to bankruptcy schedules defeat judicial estoppel | Amendments show intent to disclose assets; discharge should not bar claims. | Amendments were made only after a discharge was sought/raised as an issue; insufficient to cure prior nondisclosure. | No; amendments after discharge do not cure the estoppel. |
| Whether good faith by Rodriguez defeats judicial estoppel | No bad faith evidenced; good faith exception should apply. | No showing of good faith; representations were signed under penalty of perjury; benefits exist for nondisclosure. | No; no valid good-faith exception found. |
| Whether the state-law derivative claims survive after dismissal of underlying claims | Derivatives should survive regardless of federal claim status. | Derivative state-law claims depend on viability of the underlying retaliation claims; since those are dismissed, derivatives fail. | No; derivative state-law claims are dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alt. Sys. Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc., 374 F.3d 23 (1st Cir.2004) (two prerequisites for judicial estoppel)
- Payless Wholesale Distribs., Inc. v. Alberto Culver (P.R.), Inc., 989 F.2d 570 (1st Cir.1993) (nondisclosure as a basis for estoppel; protects integrity of proceedings)
- In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330 (5th Cir.2004) (nondisclosure tantamount to representation that no such claim existed)
- Graupner v. Town of Brookfield, 450 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D. Mass.2006) (nondisclosure supports judicial estoppel)
- Jeffrey v. Desmond, 70 F.3d 183 (1st Cir.1995) (verbal disclosures to trustee insufficient to defeat estoppel)