In re An-Tze Cheng, 308 B.R. 448 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2004 )
Judicial estoppel did not apply to Chapter 11 debtors who asserted one value of a secured claim in their lien avoidance motion and a different value in their claim objection, since they were asserting their rights as debtors in the motion and their obligation as a trustee in the objection.
Hamilton v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 270 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2001)
Debtor who failed to list insurance claim in bankruptcy schedules was judicially estopped from asserting that claim in subsequent lawsuit. “The application of judicial estoppel is not limited to bar the assertion of inconsistent positions in the same litigation, but is also appropriate to bar litigants from making incompatible statements in two different cases.”
Humetrix, Inc. v. Gemplus S.C.A., 268 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2001)
Promissory estoppel is a cause of action; equitable estoppel is used to bar a party from raising a defense or objection it otherwise would have. Use of equitable estoppel to defeat a statute of frauds defense has no bearing on the damages plaintiff may recover.
Wyler Summit Partnership v. Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 235 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2000)
“The doctrine of judicial estoppel requires, inter alia, a knowing antecedent misrepresentation by the person or party alleged to be estopped and prevents the party from tendering a contradictory assertion to a court.”
In re Meronk, 249 B.R. 208 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2000), aff’d, 24 Fed.Appx. 737 (9th Cir. 2001)
Law firm judicially estopped from seeking bonus, where in its retention application, it represented that it's hourly rate arrangement would result in a larger estate than a contingent fee, but then sought a bonus that would have brought their fee to the level they would have received if they had accepted the contingent fee arrangement.
Granite States Ins. Co. v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., 76 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 1996)
Under Cal. law, the elements of equitable estoppel are:
1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts;
2) must intend that his conduct shall be relied upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended;
3) must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and
4) must rely upon the conduct to his injury
See also Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles, 67 Cal.2d 297, 431 P.2d 245, 250 (Cal. 1967)
In re Canino, 185 B.R. 584 (9th Cir. B.A.P., 1995)
Equitable estoppel applied to exemption claim
In re Heritage Hotel Partnership, 160 B.R. 374 (9th Cir. B.A.P., 1993), aff’d, 59 F.3d 175 (9th Cir. 1995)
Equitable estoppel:
- party knew facts
- Intended that his conduct be acted upon
- Estopping party ignorant of true facts
- Relied to his damage
See also Hay v. First Interstate Bank of Kalispell, N.A., 978 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1992)
In re Howell, 120 B.R. 137 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1990)
Definition of equitable estoppel. Does not apply to govt. absent affirmative misconduct. See also In re Santos, 112 B.R. 1001, 1007-08 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1990)
In re Growers-Ranchers, Ltd., 110 B.R. 915 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1990); aff’d, 945 F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1991)
Agency director’s promise not binding nor subject to estoppel when exceeding authority
