judicial estoppel doctrine in California

2026The doctrine serves a clear purpose: to protect the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181 .) “ ‘ “The doctrine of judicial estoppel, sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, is invoked to prevent a party from changing its position over the course of judicial proceedings when such positional changes have an adverse impact on the judicial process. . . . ‘The policies underlying preclusion of inconsistent positions are “general consideration[s] of the orderly administration of justice and regard

2025Second, the doctrine of judicial estoppel “precludes a party from obtaining an advantage by asserting one position, and then seeking a second advantage by asserting an incompatible position.” (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 .) The doctrine generally applies when: “(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsist

2023The doctrine of judicial estoppel, which is sometimes referred to as the “doctrine of ‘ “ ‘preclusion of inconsistent positions,’ ” ’ ” is designed to prevent litigants from gaining an “advantage by asserting one position [in litigation], and then seeking a second advantage by asserting an incompatible position.” (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 448 (Minish); MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 (MW Erectors).) Preventing litigants from “ ‘ “ ‘ “playing ‘fast and loose with the courts’ ” ’ ” ’ ” (Minish, at p.

2023The doctrine of judicial estoppel, which is sometimes referred to as the “doctrine of ‘ “ ‘preclusion of inconsistent positions,’ ” ’ ” is designed to prevent litigants from gaining an “advantage by asserting one position [in litigation], and then seeking a second advantage by asserting an incompatible position.” (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 448 (Minish); MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 (MW Erectors).) Preventing litigants from “ ‘ “ ‘ “playing ‘fast and loose with the courts’ ” ’ ” ’ ” (Minish, at p.

2025Second, the doctrine of judicial estoppel “precludes a party from obtaining an advantage by asserting one position, and then seeking a second advantage by asserting an incompatible position.” (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 .) The doctrine generally applies when: “(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsist

2024The Trial Court Improperly Determined on Demurrer that Miyahara’s Actions Were Not the Result of Mistake or Inadvertence Miyahara concedes her original bankruptcy schedules did not list her present claim against Wells Fargo but argues that this was the result of mistake or inadvertence. “‘[T]he doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply “when the prior position was taken because of a good faith mistake rather than as part of a scheme to mislead the court.” [Citation.] An inconsistent argument sufficient to invoke judicial estoppel must be attributable to intentional wrongdoing.’” (Haley v. D

2023(Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1484 [“ ‘ “the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply ‘when the prior position was taken because of a good faith mistake rather than as part of a scheme to mislead the court’ ” ’ ”]; Haley v. Dow Lewis Motors, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 497, 509-510 [“ ‘An inconsistent argument sufficient to invoke judicial estoppel must be attributable to intentional wrongdoing’ ”].) Nor can we say that Newsom is seeking to employ an unfair strategy by challenging the jury instruction on count 13 on appeal.

2022There is no record evidence that either the trial court immediately below or the one that considered the Ex Parte Motion to Attach Assets ever relied in any way on Ernst’s reference to the Forbearance Agreement as “brief.” (See generally Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1477 [“The pivotal issue is whether it can be established that the party succeeded in the first position or that the position was a basis or important to the [decision]”.) Regardless, this is not the kind of egregious case where judicial estoppel should be applied.

2024(See Gottlieb, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 137 [“Nevertheless, one of the judicial estoppel factors— success in asserting the prior position—is not present: The bankruptcy court did not ‘adopt[] the [prior] position or accept[] it as true.’”]; accord, Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1613 [“the court found the doctrine did not apply because ‘the bankruptcy court did not adopt or accept the truth of [plaintiff’s] position that [the debtor] did not have any legal claims’ and ‘the bankruptcy case was dismissed without confirmation of a plan of reorganization

2015The Santoses contend that Gottlieb is "very similar" to this case and note that the Gottlieb court concluded that the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not apply in that case because the "creditors were not harmed as the bankruptcy case was dismissed without a confirmation of a plan of reorganization." (Citing Gottlieb, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at pp. 138-139.) However, in this case, unlike in Gottlieb, the Santoses' amended bankruptcy plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court.

2023(Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1484 [“ ‘ “the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply ‘when the prior position was taken because of a good faith mistake rather than as part of a scheme to mislead the court’ ” ’ ”]; Haley v. Dow Lewis Motors, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 497, 509-510 [“ ‘An inconsistent argument sufficient to invoke judicial estoppel must be attributable to intentional wrongdoing’ ”].) Nor can we say that Newsom is seeking to employ an unfair strategy by challenging the jury instruction on count 13 on appeal.

2016(Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974, 986 (Aguilar).) The purpose of this doctrine is to prevent litigants from engaging in unfair strategies and “‘“playing ‘fast and loose with the courts.”’”’ (Haley v. Dow Lewis Motors, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 497, 509 (Haley).) The doctrine of judicial estoppel applies when “‘(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions

2025Second, the doctrine of judicial estoppel “precludes a party from obtaining an advantage by asserting one position, and then seeking a second advantage by asserting an incompatible position.” (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 .) The doctrine generally applies when: “(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsist

2023The doctrine of judicial estoppel, which is sometimes referred to as the “doctrine of ‘ “ ‘preclusion of inconsistent positions,’ ” ’ ” is designed to prevent litigants from gaining an “advantage by asserting one position [in litigation], and then seeking a second advantage by asserting an incompatible position.” (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 448 (Minish); MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 (MW Erectors).) Preventing litigants from “ ‘ “ ‘ “playing ‘fast and loose with the courts’ ” ’ ” ’ ” (Minish, at p.

2006(Daar & Newman, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 491 .) He claims the record is devoid of any evidence of any wrongdoing on his part and he asserts, without providing any evidence, that Ligón has unclean hands with regard to her fiduciary duties to him with respect to his community property interests. 15 As discussed extensively ante, the doctrine of judicial estoppel “ ‘does not require reliance or prejudice before a party may invoke it.’ ” (Billmeyer v. Plaza Bank of Commerce, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092; see also Thomas v. Gordon, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 118 ; Drain, supra, 69 Cal.App.

2006(Daar & Newman, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 491 .) He claims the record is devoid of any evidence of any wrongdoing on his part and he asserts, without providing any evidence, that Ligón has unclean hands with regard to her fiduciary duties to him with respect to his community property interests. 15 As discussed extensively ante, the doctrine of judicial estoppel “ ‘does not require reliance or prejudice before a party may invoke it.’ ” (Billmeyer v. Plaza Bank of Commerce, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092; see also Thomas v. Gordon, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 118 ; Drain, supra, 69 Cal.App.

2021(In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343, 348 [parties may not “‘trifle with the courts’”]; see also Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 121 [discussing doctrine of judicial estoppel].) b.

2018The doctrine of judicial estoppel "prohibits a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she successfully asserted in the same or some earlier proceeding." ( Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107 , 121, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 769 ( Owens ).) The elements of judicial estoppel are: " '(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as tru

2006Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party’s later inconsistent position introduces no ‘risk of inconsistent court determinations,’ . . . and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity.” (New Hampshire, supra, 532 U.S. at pp. 750-751, citations omitted; accord, ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, 832 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 ]; Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1246 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 57 ].) Recently, the high court held that judicial estoppel did not apply where the party to be estopped had not successf

2006Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party’s later inconsistent position introduces no ‘risk of inconsistent court determinations,’ . . . and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity.” (New Hampshire, supra, 532 U.S. at pp. 750-751, citations omitted; accord, ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, 832 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 ]; Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1246 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 57 ].) Recently, the high court held that judicial estoppel did not apply where the party to be estopped had not successf

2024The judicial estoppel doctrine applies when “‘“‘“(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.”’”’” (People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 155 .) The elements of judicial estoppel are not met here because the prosecution was not “successful in assert

2017“We do not invariably enforce the judicial estoppel doctrine merely because all of its elements are met. ‘[N]umerous decisions have made clear that judicial estoppel . . . is an equitable doctrine, and its application . . . is discretionary. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 156 .) Continental has not even argued that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.

2016We disagree. “‘Judicial estoppel precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position. [Citations.] The doctrine’s dual goals are to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and to protect parties from opponents’ unfair strategies. [Citation.] Application of the doctrine is discretionary.’” (Koo v. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 735 , fn. omitted.) The doctrine of judicial estoppel applies when “‘(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial o

2013The dual goals of the doctrine of judicial estoppel ―‗are to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and to protect parties from opponents‘ unfair strategies. [Citation.] Application of the doctrine is discretionary. [Citation.]‘ [Citation.]‖ (Koo v. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 735 .) We cannot imagine a better case for the application of the doctrine.

2016In making that tactical decision he appears to have led the court to an erroneous 44 understanding of what event would trigger the prosecution’s right to such an examination and what the appropriate timing of such a motion would be.22 Similarly, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a party may be precluded “ ‘ “from changing its position over the course of judicial proceedings when such positional changes have an adverse impact on the judicial process.” ’ ” (International Engine Parts, Inc. v. Feddersen & Co. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 345, 350 .) “ ‘ “Judicial estoppel is ‘intended to protect

2000"On December 27, 1997, Emitte Kuns told me that prior to the fire he had removed the batteries from the smoke detectors in the home because `they went off when they were cooking.'" The doctrine of judicial estoppel "`applies to preclude a party from assuming a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.'..." ( International Engine Parts, Inc. v. Feddersen & Co. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 345, 350 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 178 .) "Judicial estoppel is most commonly applied to bar a party from making a factual assertion in a legal proceeding which directly contradicts an earlier

2010Assuming that the doctrine of judicial estoppel should be applied to an unsuccessful litigant only in the rare situation where the litigant has made an egregious attempt to manipulate the legal system, we agree with the trial court that ‘this is as egregious as it gets ....’” (Thomas v. Gordon, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 119 .) Thomas v. Gordon “involved a brazen admission of such egregious misconduct that it presented a rare situation where judicial estoppel should be applied even though the bankruptcy court did not rely on the debtor’s *849 nondisclosures.” (Gottlieb v. Kest, supra, 141 Cal

2006(Daar & Newman, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 491 .) He claims the record is devoid of any evidence of any wrongdoing on his part and he asserts, without providing any evidence, that Ligón has unclean hands with regard to her fiduciary duties to him with respect to his community property interests. 15 As discussed extensively ante, the doctrine of judicial estoppel “ ‘does not require reliance or prejudice before a party may invoke it.’ ” (Billmeyer v. Plaza Bank of Commerce, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092; see also Thomas v. Gordon, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 118 ; Drain, supra, 69 Cal.App.

2006As already noted, the dual purposes for applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel are “ ‘ “to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and to protect parties from opponents’ unfair strategies.” ’ ” (Aguilar v. Lerner, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 986 .) Thus, prejudice is irrelevant to a consideration of preserving the integrity of the judicial process, and “ ‘[t]he doctrine does not require reliance or prejudice before a party may invoke it.’ ” (Billmeyer v. Plaza Bank of Commerce (1995) 42 Cal.App.4th 1086, 1092 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 119 ].) However, judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, a

2006As already noted, the dual purposes for applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel are “ ‘ “to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and to protect parties from opponents’ unfair strategies.” ’ ” (Aguilar v. Lerner, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 986 .) Thus, prejudice is irrelevant to a consideration of preserving the integrity of the judicial process, and “ ‘[t]he doctrine does not require reliance or prejudice before a party may invoke it.’ ” (Billmeyer v. Plaza Bank of Commerce (1995) 42 Cal.App.4th 1086, 1092 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 119 ].) However, judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, a

2024(See Gottlieb, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 137 [“Nevertheless, one of the judicial estoppel factors— success in asserting the prior position—is not present: The bankruptcy court did not ‘adopt[] the [prior] position or accept[] it as true.’”]; accord, Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1613 [“the court found the doctrine did not apply because ‘the bankruptcy court did not adopt or accept the truth of [plaintiff’s] position that [the debtor] did not have any legal claims’ and ‘the bankruptcy case was dismissed without confirmation of a plan of reorganization

2015The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes “‘a party from assuming a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.’” (Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1610 (Hamilton).) In the bankruptcy context, when a debtor fails to disclose a claim likely to arise then judicial estoppel precludes the debtor from a subsequent attempt to pursue that claim.

2022The trial court did not address Filtzer’s judicial estoppel argument. 10 We apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel when “ ‘ “(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.” ’ ” (CytoDyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2008) 160 C

2022The trial court did not address Filtzer’s judicial estoppel argument. 10 We apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel when “ ‘ “(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.” ’ ” (CytoDyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2008) 160 C

2022Moreover, Filtzer has not met his burden in showing that collateral estoppel should be applied “ ‘ “ ‘to prevent a party from changing its position over the course of judicial proceedings when such positional changes have an adverse impact on the judicial process. . . .’ ” ’ ” (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 ; see also Ayala v. Dawson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1326 [holding that the burden is on party asserting doctrine].) There is no evidence of adverse impact on Filtzer or on the judicial process, nor does Filtzer even try to argue one. 12 In sum, the trial co

2022Moreover, Filtzer has not met his burden in showing that collateral estoppel should be applied “ ‘ “ ‘to prevent a party from changing its position over the course of judicial proceedings when such positional changes have an adverse impact on the judicial process. . . .’ ” ’ ” (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 ; see also Ayala v. Dawson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1326 [holding that the burden is on party asserting doctrine].) There is no evidence of adverse impact on Filtzer or on the judicial process, nor does Filtzer even try to argue one. 12 In sum, the trial co

2020(See Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1513 [when " 'previous decision 102 rests on "different factual and legal foundation" [from] the issue . . . in the case at bar, collateral estoppel effect should be denied' "].)60 The judicial estoppel doctrine applies when: " '(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent

2020(See Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1513 [when " 'previous decision 102 rests on "different factual and legal foundation" [from] the issue . . . in the case at bar, collateral estoppel effect should be denied' "].)60 The judicial estoppel doctrine applies when: " '(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent

2024But by confirming the award and rejecting Mansoir’s petition to vacate it, the court effectively confirmed the award in the HOA’s favor, too. (§ 1286 [“If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made”].) Thus, confirmation of the arbitrator’s award would seem to entitle the HOA 10 Additionally, judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, so “whether it should be applied is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.” (Blix Street Records, Inc. v. Cassidy (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 39 , 46–47.) Mansoir does not contend, much le

2022“The doctrine of judicial estoppel, sometimes called the doctrine of ‘ “ ‘preclusion of inconsistent positions’ ” ’ [citation], ‘ “ ‘precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position. [Citations.] The doctrine’s dual goals are to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and to protect parties from opponents’ unfair strategies.’ ” ’ ” (Blix Street Records, Inc. v. Cassidy (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 39, 47 [applying judicial estoppel to preclude party from disputing enforceability of a settlement agreement]

2023(See The Swahn Group, Inc. v. Segal (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 831, 841-843 [discussing doctrine of judicial estoppel].) Therefore, to prevent Koehler from being paid twice for the same work, it is necessary to offset/reimburse the fees already paid.

2022The trial court did not address Filtzer’s judicial estoppel argument. 10 We apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel when “ ‘ “(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.” ’ ” (CytoDyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2008) 160 C

2006Prior Success The third requirement for applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel is that “the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true)[.j” (Jackson, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 183.) “Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party’s later inconsistent position introduces no ‘risk of inconsistent court determinations,’ [citation], and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity.” (New Hampshire v. Maine (2001) 532 U.S. 742, 750-751 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 968 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 ].) Levin maintains that the malpractice settleme

2006Prior Success The third requirement for applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel is that “the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true)[.j” (Jackson, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 183.) “Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party’s later inconsistent position introduces no ‘risk of inconsistent court determinations,’ [citation], and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity.” (New Hampshire v. Maine (2001) 532 U.S. 742, 750-751 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 968 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 ].) Levin maintains that the malpractice settleme

2011(Ryan Operations, supra, 81 F.3d at p. 357 .) The Third Circuit concluded that judicial estoppel would be inappropriate “as there is no evidence that [plaintiff] acted in bad faith.” (Id. at p. 362.) The court held that the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply “ ‘when the prior position was taken because of a good faith mistake rather than as part of a scheme to mislead the court.’ ” (Ibid.) The court explained that in Oneida Motor Freight, there was ample evidence from which an inference of deliberate manipulation could be drawn, namely, “Oneida had listed its $7.7 million debt to the

2011(Ryan Operations, supra, 81 F.3d at p. 357 .) The Third Circuit concluded that judicial estoppel would be inappropriate “as there is no evidence that [plaintiff] acted in bad faith.” (Id. at p. 362.) The court held that the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply “ ‘when the prior position was taken because of a good faith mistake rather than as part of a scheme to mislead the court.’ ” (Ibid.) The court explained that in Oneida Motor Freight, there was ample evidence from which an inference of deliberate manipulation could be drawn, namely, “Oneida had listed its $7.7 million debt to the

2016“The doctrine of judicial estoppel applies when ‘(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken injudicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position . . . ; (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.’ [Citation.]” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 85 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ], quoting Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 183 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 96 ].) Here, in the notice

2016“The doctrine of judicial estoppel applies when ‘(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken injudicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position . . . ; (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.’ [Citation.]” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 85 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ], quoting Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 183 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 96 ].) Here, in the notice