Taylor v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
506 B.R. 157
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- Keith Taylor sued Novartis on September 1, 2006; the case was later consolidated and then remanded to this court.
- Taylor filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy on March 30, 2010, but did not list the pending lawsuit in his bankruptcy schedules or Statement of Financial Affairs.
- The Bankruptcy Court discharged Taylor and closed the case in July–August 2010.
- Novartis moved (originally under Rule 12(c), converted to summary judgment) to dismiss based on judicial estoppel for the nondisclosure and alternatively challenged Taylor's standing.
- Taylor contends nondisclosure was inadvertent, that Novartis’s motion was untimely, and asks the trustee be allowed to pursue the claim if necessary.
- The Court converted the Rule 12(c) motion to a Rule 56 motion, found nondisclosure deliberate/motivated by benefit from a no-asset discharge, granted summary judgment on judicial estoppel, and held Taylor lacks standing; the trustee has not sought substitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Taylor from pursuing the suit | Nondisclosure was unintentional/inadvertent | Taylor intentionally concealed the suit from the bankruptcy court to obtain a better discharge | Judicial estoppel applies; dismissal granted |
| Whether Taylor lacks standing after bankruptcy discharge | Untimely challenge; Taylor still has interest | Pre-petition claim became estate property; only trustee has standing | Taylor lacks standing; trustee not substituted (no motion) |
| Whether the motion was timely | Motion filed after dispositive deadline; untimely | Standing/judicial estoppel can be raised anytime; conversion to SJ permitted | Timeliness objection rejected as meritless given standing defect |
| Whether trustee should be substituted as plaintiff | If Taylor lacks standing, trustee should be allowed to proceed | Trustee has not moved to intervene/substitute | Court declined to substitute; trustee not before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (articulates purpose and factors for judicial estoppel)
- Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2010) (applies judicial estoppel in bankruptcy nondisclosure context)
- Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (intent may be inferred from record for estoppel analysis)
- Parker v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 365 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2004) (pre-petition suit is estate property; trustee has standing)
- Barger v. City of Cartersville, 348 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) (inadvertence standard for nondisclosure; motive inquiry)
- Casanova v. Pre Solutions, Inc., 228 Fed.Appx. 837 (11th Cir. 2007) (relevant intent is at time of nondisclosure)