Gloria Funtanilla v. SWEDISH HOSPITAL HEALTH SERVICES; SEIU LOCAL 1199, a labor union

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA FUNTANILLA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SWEDISH HOSPITAL HEALTH
SERVICES; SEIU LOCAL 1199, a labor
union,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35337
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01226-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Gloria Funtanilla 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
FILED
DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

estoppel, Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.
2001), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that judicial
estoppel barred Funtanilla’s employment action because Funtanilla was aware of
but failed to disclose the existence of her claims in bankruptcy proceedings. See
id. at 784-85 (a debtor is judicially estopped from asserting civil claims where
debtor knew of the claims but failed to disclose them in bankruptcy proceedings
that discharged debtor’s debt). Moreover, Funtanilla failed to establish that her
failure to disclose was inadvertent or mistaken, 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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Funtanilla
failed to demonstrate circumstances that would warrant appointment of counsel.
See Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 27 F.3d 415, 416-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per
curiam) (standard of review and factors relevant to appointment of counsel).
11-35337 2

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent that Funtanilla challenges the denial of her motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s January 10, 2011 order, the district court did
not abuse its discretion because Funtanilla failed to establish a basis for
reconsideration. See W.D. Wash. R. 7(h)(1) (setting forth grounds for
reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993)
(reviewing application of local rules for abuse of discretion); see also Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth factors for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
We do not consider Funtanilla’s contention, raised for the first time on
appeal, that her bankruptcy counsel was ineffective because he failed to check
court records for other legal claims. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2
(9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
11-35337 3

-- 3 of 3 --