Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-15548.,12-15548. |
| Citation | 871 F.3d 1174 |
| Parties | Sandra SLATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Roderick Dale Graham, Graham & Associates, BIRMINGHAM, AL, Charles C. Tatum, Jr., Attorney at Law, JASPER, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Anthony Francis Jeselnik, Samuel Franklin Reynolds, Jr., United States Steel Corporation, Law Department, PITTSBURGH, PA, William H. Morrow, Ivan B. Cooper, Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC, BIRMINGHAM, AL, Kathleen M. Sullivan, William Adams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, NEW YORK, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Jon Erik Heath, Law Offices of Jon Erik Heath, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS for Amicus Curiae.
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, MARCUS, WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.*
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
When an individual files for bankruptcy, he must file sworn disclosures listing his debts and his assets, including any pending civil claims, and identifying any lawsuits he has filed against others. Occasionally, a plaintiff who has a pending civil lawsuit fails to list the claims or lawsuit in these disclosures. In omitting this information, the plaintiff 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.
The equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel is intended to protect courts against parties who seek to manipulate the judicial process by changing their legal positions to suit the exigencies of the moment. Today, we address how this doctrine should be applied when a plaintiff takes inconsistent positions by pursuing in district court a civil claim that he failed to disclose as an asset in his bankruptcy proceedings. We reaffirm our precedent that when presented with this scenario, a district court may apply judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff's civil claim if it finds that the plaintiff intended to make a mockery of the judicial system.
But what suffices for a district court to find that a plaintiff who did not disclose a civil lawsuit in bankruptcy filings intended to make a mockery of the judicial system? Our Court has endorsed a rule that the mere fact of the plaintiff's nondisclosure is sufficient, even if the plaintiff corrected his bankruptcy disclosures after the omission was called to his attention and the bankruptcy court allowed the correction without penalty. See Barger v. City of Cartersville , 348 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) ; Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. , 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002). We granted en banc review to reconsider this precedent.
We hold today that when determining whether a plaintiff who failed to disclose a civil lawsuit in bankruptcy filings intended to make a mockery of the judicial system, a district court should consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. The court should look to factors such as the plaintiff's level of sophistication, his explanation for the omission, whether he subsequently corrected the disclosures, and any action taken by the bankruptcy court concerning the nondisclosure. We acknowledge that in this scenario the plaintiff acted voluntarily, in the sense that he knew of his civil claim when completing the disclosure forms. But voluntariness alone does not necessarily establish a calculated attempt to undermine the judicial process. We therefore overrule the portions of Burnes and Barger that permit a district court to infer intent to misuse the courts without considering the individual plaintiff and the circumstances surrounding the nondisclosure.
Here, the district court applied judicial estoppel to bar plaintiff Sandra Slater's discrimination and retaliation claims in a lawsuit against her employer, U.S. Steel Corporation, because Slater failed to disclose these civil claims as assets in her bankruptcy. Relying on our precedent in Burnes and Barger , the district court inferred from Slater's nondisclosure alone that she intended to manipulate the judicial process. A panel of our Court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying judicial estoppel. Because we announce a new inquiry for evaluating intent to make a mockery of the judicial system, we remand to the panel so that it may decide whether the district court abused its discretion in light of this new standard.
Slater, a high school graduate, worked for U.S. Steel for more than 10 years performing general manual labor. Slater sued U.S. Steel for discrimination based on race and sex in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq , and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and for retaliating against her after she complained of race and sex discrimination, in violation of Title VII and § 1981. U.S. Steel moved for summary judgment on all of Slater's claims. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court denied summary judgment on Slater's claims that she suffered discrimination in job assignments based on her sex and was fired in retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination. Despite withstanding summary judgment, Slater never had an opportunity to present these claims to a jury.
About a month after the district court's summary judgment ruling, Slater—represented by different counsel than in her discrimination case—filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. She did not disclose her lawsuit against U.S. Steel in her bankruptcy petition or the schedules filed with her petition. When asked under penalty of perjury in Schedule B-Personal Property to identify any "contingent and unliquidated claims," she answered "none." Voluntary Pet. at 10, In re Slater , No. 11-02865 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. June 2, 2011), ECF No. 1. And when asked under penalty of perjury in her Statement of Financial Affairs to identify any "suits and administrative proceedings to which the debtor is or was a party within one year immediately preceding the filing of this bankruptcy case," she again answered "none." Id. at 29 (emphasis omitted).
After Slater filed her disclosures, the bankruptcy trustee issued a Report of No Distribution, finding there was no property available for distribution from the estate over and above that exempted by law. In the absence of any objections to the report, 30 days later the estate became presumptively fully administered. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5009(a).
The next day, U.S. Steel again moved for summary judgment in the employment discrimination case, this time on the ground that because Slater failed to disclose her civil claims in the bankruptcy proceeding, the doctrine of judicial estoppel should bar her from pursuing those claims. In response, Slater testified by declaration that she did not intentionally misrepresent facts to the bankruptcy court. She further explained that she misunderstood the question in the Statement of Financial Affairs regarding "suits and administrative proceedings to which the debtor is or was a party" as asking only about suits filed against her.
The next business day after U.S. Steel filed the motion, Slater amended her Statement of Financial Affairs and Schedule B to her bankruptcy petition to disclose her claims against U.S. Steel. The bankruptcy trustee then filed with the bankruptcy court a request to employ the lawyers who were representing Slater in her employment action to continue to pursue the claims against U.S. Steel on behalf of the estate. The bankruptcy court granted the motion.
The bankruptcy case proceeded: upon Slater's petition, the court converted the case from a Chapter 7 to a Chapter 13 proceeding, and Slater filed a proposed Chapter 13 plan, which the bankruptcy court confirmed. Later, though, when Slater failed to pay the trustee under the terms of the confirmed plan, the bankruptcy court dismissed her case, meaning her debts never were discharged in bankruptcy.
Slater's civil action fared no better. The district court granted U.S. Steel's motion for summary judgment, applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to bar her claims. The court rejected Slater's arguments that her omission of the civil claims in the bankruptcy proceeding was inadvertent and that she never intended to thwart the judicial process. The court explained that under our circuit precedent, a failure to disclose is " ‘inadvertent’ only when ... the debtor either lacks knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has no motive for their concealment." Order at 11 (emphasis added) (Doc. 89)1 (quoting Barger , 348 F.3d at 1295-96 ).
The district court found that Slater knew about her civil claims, filed in 2009, when she completed the bankruptcy disclosures in 2011 and that she had a motive to conceal the claims "to defraud creditors into accepting her [bankruptcy] case as one involving no assets for distribution despite the real possibility with the impending trial of the discrimination case that she could soon be receiving a money settlement or a money judgment in her favor." Id. at 12. Although Slater corrected her disclosures immediately after U.S. Steel brought the omissions to light, the district court found this fact irrelevant because "waiting until after being caught to rectify the omission is too little, too late."Id. Following Burnes , Barger , and their progeny, the court drew an inference that Slater intended to make a mockery of the judicial system based on its finding that she had knowledge of the undisclosed claims and a motive to conceal them.
Slater appealed. After oral argument, a panel of this Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to U.S. Steel. In a concurring opinion, Judge Tjoflat urged the Court to review en banc our precedent permitting the inference on which the district court relied, that a plaintiff who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Boyd
...warrant it’ help to ‘reduce the risk that [its] application ... will give the civil defendants a windfall.’ " (quoting Slater , 871 F.3d at 1186 )).This Court expressly holds that Debtor had no duty to disclose the Lawsuit or amend schedules for that purpose in this case. Based on this hold......
-
Nilhan Developers, LLC v. Glass (In re Nilhan Developers, LLC)
...seek to manipulate the judicial process by changing their legal positions to suit the exigencies of the moment." Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174, 1176 (11th Cir. 2017). In New Hampshire v. Maine, the Court explained that under the judicial estoppel doctrine, "[w]here a party assum......
-
Laufer v. Arpan LLC
...trier of the facts and the uncontradicted testimony of a witness does not have to be accepted."); Slater v. U. S. Steel Corp. , 871 F.3d 1174, 1190–91 (11th Cir. 2017) (Carnes, J., concurring) (noting that the reason a district court need not accept a party's testimony even if it is not con......
-
Alward v. Johnston
...under chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 323(a), 541(a) (2012) ; Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174, 1179 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Upon the filing of the petition, all of the debtor's legal and equitable interests in property — including to......
-
The Housing Bubble and Consumer Bankruptcy (Parts III and IV).
...This violates countless cases that hold the cause of action is part of the bankruptcy estate. Eg, Slater v. United States Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (D had a duty to list prepetition causes of action amongst his (273) See Robert Stevens, When and Why Does Unjust E......
-
Employer Responses
...v. City of Cartersville , 348 F.3d 1289, 1297 (11th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds, Slater v. United States Steel Corporation , 871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2017) (judicial estoppel does not prohibit plaintiff-debtor from pursuing non-monetary relief because such relief adds no monetary......
-
Chapter I. Effectuating the Fresh Start
...2001) (failure of a chapter 13 debtor to disclose a tort claim alone is grounds for judicial estoppel).[108] Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174, 1176 (11th Cir. 2017) (ruling “a district court should consider all the facts and circumstances” in deciding whether to apply judicial esto......
-
Bankruptcy
...Cir. 2016). For a discussion of that decision, see 2016 Bankruptcy Survey supra note 3, at 946-48. The en banc decision is reported at 871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2016).7. 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017).8. Id. at 1415-16.9. 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (2018).10. Pub. L. No. 90-321, 91 Stat. 874 (1977); Midl......