United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
ORDER
WILLIAM H. STEELE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. 34). The plaintiff declined the
opportunity to respond, (Doc. 44), the defendant filed no
reply, and the motion is ripe for resolution. After careful
consideration, the Court concludes that the motion is due to
be granted.
BACKGROUND
According
to the amended complaint, (Doc. 3), the plaintiff was
employed by the defendant. The plaintiff was subjected to a
racially hostile work environment and, when he complained,
was terminated. The plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII
and state law.
The
defendant argues the merits of the plaintiff's claims,
but it also asserts those claims are barred by judicial
estoppel because the plaintiff did not disclose in his
bankruptcy filings the existence of this lawsuit. (Doc. 34 at
9-13). The Court finds the latter argument dispositive.
DISCUSSION
“[A]
district court may apply judicial estoppel when a two-part
test is satisfied: the plaintiff (1) took a position under
oath in the bankruptcy proceeding that was inconsistent with
the plaintiff's pursuit of the civil lawsuit and (2)
intended to make a mockery of the judicial system.”
Slater v. United States Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174,
1180 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). When these
elements are present, a court has “discretion to
dismiss the party's claims.” Id.
Conversely, “[w]hen a plaintiff intended no deception,
judicial estoppel may not be applied.” Id. at
1187.
Because
judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense, [1] on motion for
summary judgment the defendant must present evidence that, if
not controverted, would require a favorable determination of
the fact in issue. United States v. Four Parcels of Real
Property, 941 F.2d 1428, 1438 (11th Cir.
1991) (en banc) (emphasis in original); accord
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115
(11th Cir. 1993). The facts described below are so
supported.[2]
It is
uncontroverted that the plaintiff took a position under oath
in his bankruptcy proceeding that was inconsistent with his
pursuit of this lawsuit. The defendant filed this action on
April 2, 2018, seeking compensatory and punitive damages in
connection with his allegedly unlawful work environment and
termination. (Doc. 1 at 11). Four months later, on August 8,
2018, the plaintiff filed in this District a Chapter 13
bankruptcy petition. In re: Timmons, Bankr. No.
18-03185, Doc. 1. On September 4, 2018, while this action was
pending, the plaintiff filed Schedule A/B, which includes
over 50 numbered paragraphs describing types of assets for
disclosure. Id., Doc. 10. Paragraph 33 requires a
debtor to identify any “[c]laims against third parties,
whether or not you have filed a lawsuit or made a demand for
payment” and lists as examples “[a]ccidents,
employment disputes, insurance claims, or rights to
sue.” Id. at 13. The plaintiff checked the
“no” box. Id. On the same date, the
plaintiff filed his Statement of Financial Affairs, which
required him to “identify legal actions, repossessions,
and foreclosures.” Id. at 36. The plaintiff
was asked, “[w]ithin 1 year before you filed for
bankruptcy, were you a party in any lawsuit, court action, or
administrative proceeding” and was instructed to
“list all such matters”; the plaintiff again
checked the “no” box. Id. at 38. The
plaintiff declared under penalty of perjury that these
representations were true and correct. Id. at 35,
41.[3]
Both these representations were in fact incorrect and
inconsistent with the plaintiff's pursuit of this
lawsuit. Slater, 871 F.3d at 1176 (“[A]
plaintiff who has a pending civil lawsuit [who] fails to list
the … lawsuit in these [bankruptcy] disclosures
effectively takes inconsistent positions in the two judicial
proceedings by asserting in the civil lawsuit that he has a
claim against the defendant while denying under oath in the
bankruptcy proceeding that the claim exists.”).
“We
hold that to determine whether a plaintiff's inconsistent
statements were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial
system, a court should look to all the facts and
circumstances of the particular case.” Slater,
871 F.3d at 1185.
In
particular:
the court may consider such factors as the plaintiff's
level of sophistication, whether and under what circumstances
the plaintiff corrected the disclosures, whether the
plaintiff told his bankruptcy attorney about the civil claims
before filing the bankruptcy disclosures, whether the trustee
or creditors were aware of the civil lawsuit or claims before
the plaintiff amended the disclosures, whether the plaintiff
identified other lawsuits to which he was party, and any
findings or actions by the bankruptcy court after the
omission was discovered.
Id. This listing is not exhaustive, and a court
“is free to consider any fact or factor it deems
relevant to the intent inquiry.” Id. at 1185
n.9.
The
facts and circumstances presented here demonstrate that the
plaintiff's false representations in the bankruptcy
proceedings that he was not a plaintiff in any lawsuit were
calculated to deceive and thereby make a mockery of the
judicial system. First, the plaintiff is modestly
sophisticated, as he was a salaried supervisor with the
defendant and ran a cattle business on the
side.[4] Second, the Chapter 13 proceeding at issue
is the plaintiff's third bankruptcy case, [5]demonstrating that
he has substantial experience with the applicable
...