578 F. App'x 755
10th Cir.2014Background
- Smith, pro se, filed two Title VII discrimination suits against UPS in 2012 and 2013 while on leave; UPS employment terminated in November 2012.
- Smith filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2013 without disclosing the two suits; bankruptcy trustee later argued, unsuccessfully, about disclosure.
- Magistrate judge recommended granting UPS’s motion to dismiss the first suit and denying summary judgment to Smith; district court adopted, with minimal objection by Smith.
- In the second suit, UPS moved to dismiss for time-bar, duplicative claims, and lack of standing; later argued judicial estoppel due to nondisclosure.
- Bankruptcy discharge occurred and the district court’s decisions were appealed in two dockets; the panel ultimately dismissed both appeals on judicial-estoppel grounds.
- The court held the real-party-in-interest issue is controlled by bankruptcy abandonment rules, and ultimately dismissed both appeals based on judicial estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the first appeal. | Smith contends standing exists and defects are procedural. | UPS argues trustee has real-party-in-interest status and lacks standing for Smith. | Subject-matter jurisdiction exists; however, dismissal on other grounds follows. |
| Whether judicial estoppel requires dismissal of the first appeal. | Smith argues nondisclosure was not intentional. | Smith deliberately failed to disclose suits in bankruptcy. | Appeal dismissed on judicial-estoppel grounds. |
| Whether judicial estoppel requires dismissal of the second appeal. | Smith disputes application of estoppel to subsequent proceedings. | Nondisclosure warrants estoppel in both appeals. | Second appeal dismissed on judicial-estoppel grounds. |
| Whether UPS timely moved to dismiss the first appeal. | Motion to dismiss untimely under Rule 27.2(A)(3). | Motion untimely and denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete injury, causation, redress)
- Esposito v. United States, 368 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes standing from real-party-in-interest)
- K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss Int'l Corp., 763 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1985) (real-party-in-interest concept; impact on jurisdiction)
- Parker v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 365 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2004) (real-party-in-interest after bankruptcy)