Karen Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corporation;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAREN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17278
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02531-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Karen Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
her employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion the district court’s application of judicial estoppel.
FILED
AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17278 2
Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2001). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that judicial
estoppel barred Johnson’s employment action because Johnson was aware of but
failed to disclose the existence of those claims in bankruptcy proceedings that
discharged her debts. See id. at 784-85 (applying judicial estoppel where debtor
knowingly failed to disclose the existence of a cause of action as an asset in a
bankruptcy proceeding and the bankruptcy court relied on the nondisclosure).
Johnson does not contend that the nondisclosure was the result of inadvertence or
mistake, and she did not attempt to reopen bankruptcy proceedings or correct the
initial filing error. See Ah Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai Dep’t of Transp., No. 10-16000,
___ F.3d ____, 2013 WL 3814916 at *4, *7 (9th Cir. July 24, 2013) (remanding
for an inquiry into plaintiff-debtor’s subjective intent when filling out and signing
bankruptcy schedules where plaintiff-debtor contended that the nondisclosure was
the result of inadvertence or mistake and had reopened bankruptcy proceedings to
correct the initial filing error).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --