Vehicle Market Research, Inc. v. Mitchell International, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17844

John Tagliapietra, sole owner of Vehicle Market Research, Inc. (VMR), developed a TLSS product and licensed it exclusively to Mitchell under an agreement that reserved to VMR title in certain pre-existing materials and provided royalties up to a cap (amended cap $4.5M).
Tagliapietra filed personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy on October 14, 2005, listing his VMR stock value as $0.00; later Trustee schedules listed the value as “unknown,” which Tagliapietra approved; he received a discharge in October 2009.
Mitchell stopped royalty payments in 2005 and launched its own product (TLV) in November 2005; Tagliapietra first suspected misuse of VMR’s materials around 2007 and viewed TLV in 2009.
VMR sued Mitchell on October 5, 2009 alleging breach and seeking royalties “up to” $4.5M; in a 2011 deposition Tagliapietra testified that the Pre-Existing Materials were worth about $4M and that VMR was entitled to “up to $4M” in royalties.
The district court (piercing the veil to treat Tagliapietra and VMR as one) granted summary judgment for Mitchell on judicial estoppel grounds, finding the later litigation positions inconsistent with the 2005 $0.00 bankruptcy valuation.
The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding Mitchell failed to prove the requisite clearly inconsistent positions and that judicial estoppel should be applied narrowly and only when a party’s later position is clearly inconsistent with an earlier one.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether VMR/Tagliapietra’s 2009 lawsuit and 2011 testimony were clearly inconsistent with his 2005 bankruptcy valuation of VMR stock at $0.00	The later claim and testimony reflect an assertion of value in VMR’s IP/royalties but represent opinions about potential recovery, not definitive prior facts	The later lawsuit and testimony (e.g., $4M value for pre-existing materials; seeking up to $4.5M royalties) are inconsistent with the $0.00 schedule and justify estoppel	Reversed: statements were not clearly inconsistent; amounts were opinion/contingent and need not establish estoppel
Whether Tagliapietra had a continuing duty in bankruptcy to amend schedules as the value of VMR changed	No continuing duty to update evolving valuation of a properly scheduled, inchoate claim; a trustee bears responsibility to investigate	Debtor had a duty to amend and disclosure of increased value before discharge would preclude later litigation	Held for purposes of judicial estoppel: Mitchell failed to show a clear inconsistent statement; court did not decide a bright-line duty to amend but treated such duty as not clearly established for estoppel here

Bradford v. Wiggins, 516 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2008) (judicial estoppel is a harsh remedy and must be applied cautiously)
Hansen v. Harper Excavating, Inc., 641 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2011) (doctrine applies when party takes a position clearly inconsistent with an earlier position; Tenth Circuit applies estoppel narrowly)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel protects integrity of judicial process by prohibiting shifting positions to suit litigation exigencies)
Eastman v. Union Pac. R. Co., 493 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for estoppel on summary judgment; facts and inferences viewed in favor of non-movant)
Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (debtor who fails to disclose pre-petition claims at petition time has continuing duty to disclose those claims)
In re Midkiff, 342 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2003) (involving Chapter 13 context; not directly controlling here)
United States v. Messner, 107 F.3d 1448 (10th Cir. 1997) (discussion of when after-acquired property or proceeds may be estate property)