Thomas v. Gordon
85 Cal. App. 4th 113, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 28, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 12751 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of judicial estoppel bars a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position they successfully asserted in a prior proceeding, especially when the initial position was an egregious attempt to manipulate the legal system, such as disclaiming an asset in bankruptcy to defraud creditors.
Facts:
- Dr. Shari Thomas, concerned about disputes with other doctors and potential creditors, entered into a romantic relationship with Wanda Joy Woodruff.
- To shelter her assets, Thomas, with the help of prior advisors, structured her medical practice through two corporations, Women’s Health and its parent company, Nationwide.
- Thomas intentionally held no official position as an officer, director, or shareholder in either corporation to hide her connection to the assets.
- Woodruff was made the sole shareholder of Nationwide, the parent company of Women's Health.
- Thomas funded Women's Health almost entirely with income from her medical practice.
- Barry Gordon was subsequently hired as the accountant for the corporations.
- Thomas later filed for bankruptcy on two separate occasions.
- In both bankruptcy petitions, Thomas signed schedules of assets under penalty of perjury, omitting and thereby disclaiming any legal or equitable interest in Women’s Health or Nationwide.
Procedural Posture:
- Shari Thomas filed a lawsuit against her accountant, Barry Gordon, in a California trial court.
- Gordon filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Thomas's claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Gordon.
- Thomas, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of judicial estoppel bar a plaintiff from asserting an equitable interest in a corporation to sue its accountant, when the plaintiff previously and repeatedly denied having any such interest under oath in bankruptcy proceedings to shield assets from creditors?
Opinions:
Majority - Curry, J.
Yes. The doctrine of judicial estoppel bars a plaintiff from asserting an equitable interest in a corporation when she has previously disclaimed that interest under oath in a separate judicial proceeding to gain an advantage. The primary purpose of judicial estoppel is to protect the integrity of the judiciary by preventing litigants from 'playing fast and loose with the courts.' While a common element of judicial estoppel is that the party succeeded in the prior litigation, success is not a rigid requirement and can be waived in egregious cases or satisfied by gaining a procedural advantage. Here, Thomas's admission that she created the corporations to defraud creditors, combined with her sworn omissions in bankruptcy, constituted an egregious attempt to manipulate the legal system. Furthermore, by filing for bankruptcy, she obtained an automatic stay against her creditors, which is a sufficient 'success' or advantage to trigger estoppel. Even absent estoppel, her claim fails because an accountant's duty is to the corporation, not to an unlisted party with a concealed, fraudulent 'equitable' interest, as equity does not aid those with unclean hands.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and expands the doctrine of judicial estoppel in California by clarifying that the 'success' prong of the test is not an absolute prerequisite. The court establishes that in cases involving egregious manipulation of the judicial system, estoppel may apply even without a favorable final judgment in the prior case. Furthermore, the ruling broadens the definition of 'success' to include procedural benefits, such as the automatic stay in bankruptcy, making the doctrine applicable in a wider range of circumstances. This holding serves as a strong deterrent against litigants making contradictory statements in different legal proceedings and reinforces that corporate professionals owe their duties to the corporate entity, not to individuals with secret interests, particularly those created for fraudulent purposes.
