Timothy Weakley v. Jennifer Roberts, 894 F.3d 1244

Timothy Weakley filed two civil lawsuits seeking over $14,000,000 in damages while simultaneously pursuing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy but did not list those two lawsuits as assets in his bankruptcy schedules.
He did disclose two other, lower-value lawsuits in the bankruptcy filings.
Weakley amended his bankruptcy filings six times without adding the two high-value suits; he only amended to disclose them after defendants moved to dismiss the suits based on nondisclosure.
The district court found Weakley intentionally misled the bankruptcy court and dismissed his two lawsuits under the doctrine of judicial estoppel; Weakley appealed.
Weakley also voluntarily dismissed his Chapter 13 petition after the nondisclosure was challenged; he argued that made the judicial-estoppel dismissal improper, but the district court and Eleventh Circuit rejected that contention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Weakley's nondisclosure supports judicial estoppel (intent to mislead)	Weakley implied omission was not intentional or dispositive; he contested inference of bad intent	Defendants: omission plus repeated amendments and strategic disclosure of smaller suits shows intent to conceal lucrative claims	Court: Affirmed dismissal — intent found based on entire facts and circumstances (not an automatic inference)
Whether filing position in bankruptcy was inconsistent with pursuing civil suits	Weakley: pursuing suits and failing to list them does not automatically bar suits; offered explanations	Defendants: failure to list pending claims while pursuing them is inconsistent under oath	Court: Inconsistency satisfied — failure to list suits while pursuing them demonstrates inconsistent sworn positions
Whether voluntary dismissal of bankruptcy moots or defeats judicial estoppel	Weakley: dismissing bankruptcy eliminates the basis for estoppel and makes dismissal improper	Defendants: allowing dismissal to cure estoppel would permit gaming of judicial process	Court: Rejected mootness argument — voluntary dismissal after being caught would undermine judicial estoppel’s purpose; dismissal stands

Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (two-part test for judicial estoppel and directive to consider all facts and circumstances)
Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2010) (failure to amend Chapter 13 to reflect pending claim while pursuing it elsewhere is an inconsistent position under oath)
Daniel v. Taylor, 808 F.2d 1401 (11th Cir. 1986) (appellate courts will not consider evidence not presented to the district court)