Edwards
Edwards v. Alamo Group (USA)
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Kent Edwards, a Chapter 11 debtor, appeals from the district court’s grant of *694 summary judgment to the defendants, Alamo Group (USA) and Alamo Group (WA) (“Alamo”), on the grounds that Edwards’ fraud claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 1 We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and we review for an abuse of discretion its application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel to the facts of this case. Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we recount them here only as necessary to explain our decision.
Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that “precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position.” Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1996). Its application in this court is restricted to cases where the court relied on or accepted the party’s prior inconsistent position. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 139 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998).