Karmel Roe v. Bank of America, N.A.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Karmel Roe appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s application of judicial estoppel. Ah Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai Dep’t of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir.2013). We vacate and remand.
After the district court dismissed Roe’s action, we decided Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Department of Transportation, which remanded a dismissal on the basis of judicial estoppel where the plaintiff-debtor argued that she had omitted her claims from her bankruptcy schedules due to inadvertence or mistake. See id. at 279 . Because the district court did not have the benefit of Ah Quin when it issued its order of dismissal, we remand to allow the district court to reconsider its application of judicial estoppel, including whether the bankruptcy court accepted Roe’s nondisclosure and whether she would derive an unfair advantage if not estopped. See id. at 271 (noting that both factors are met where the debtor obtains a discharge or plan confirmation).