Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. United States, Case No. 13-C-651

• Court: United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
• Writing for the Court: HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA U.S. District Court Judge
• Parties: SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., PATRICK CUDAHY, INC., ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE CO., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., GENERAL SECURITY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO., TOKIO MARINE AND NICHIDO FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON AND ITS MEMBERS SUBSCRIBING TO CONTRACT NO. DP685509(1), UNIQUE MARKET REFERENCE B0509685509, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Decision Date: 07 March 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 13-C-651

SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., PATRICK CUDAHY, INC.,
ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE CO.,
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., GENERAL SECURITY INDEMNITY
COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.,
TOKIO MARINE AND NICHIDO FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF
LONDON AND ITS MEMBERS SUBSCRIBING
TO CONTRACT NO. DP685509(1),
UNIQUE MARKET REFERENCE B0509685509, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Case No. 13-C-651

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

March 7, 2016

DECISION AND ORDER

The Plaintiffs seek reconsideration (ECF No. 193) of this Court's February 11, 2016, Order directing the parties to file revised proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law because they did not brief the issues under California law. They contend that (1) under California choice-of-law rules this Court should apply the law of the forum state - Wisconsin; (2) the parties have always agreed that Wisconsin law applies regarding damages; and (3) referencing California's three-step governmental interest

Page 2

choice of law test,¹ the Plaintiffs "presume" the first step is met, analyze the second and third steps, and conclude that Wisconsin damages law. applies.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs' position is irreconcilable with the Court's earlier choice of law ruling and with the Plaintiffs' prior positions in this litigation and should be barred by judicial estoppel, citing federal law of judicial estoppel. (ECF No. 194.)

The Government cites federal law of judicial estoppel without explaining why federal, not state, law of judicial estoppel applies. However, Wells v. Coker, 707 F.3d 756, 760 (7th Cir 2013) supports the application of federal law. See id. (holding that judicial estoppel "is not part of the law of judgments in Illinois so much as it is a rule of evidence or pleading." (quoting Astor Chauffeured Limousine Co. v. Runnfeldt Inv. Corp., 910 F.2d 1540, 1550 (7th Cir. 1990).) (citation omitted)). The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from prevailing on an

Page 3

argument in an earlier matter and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in a subsequent matter. Wells, 707 F.3d at 760 (citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001)) (Emphasis added). Because the United States is attempting to invoke judicial estoppel in a single lawsuit, it does not apply. Previously, the Court held that because the case was transferred from California law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), California's choice-of-law rules, which governed the federal district court in California, continued to apply. Smithfield Foods, In...