Scott v. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
- Summarized by David Treacy , U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
- 1 year 6 months ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 23-2609 & 23-2610 (3rd Circuit, Aug 20,2024) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held a district court didn't abuse its discretion in dismissing the appellant's employment discrimination cases, without prejudice, based on judicial estoppel. The appellant didn't disclose the cases on his chapter 7 bankruptcy schedules. His effort to litigate his claims was "irreconcilably inconsistent" with his schedules, he knew of the claims when he filed the schedules, and he had a motive to conceal the claims in bankruptcy. Appellant didn't rebut the inference of bad faith that arose, and dismissal was an appropriate sanction.
- Procedural context:
- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal orders in a per curiam opinion. The opinion notes Debtor "is a frequent filer in the federal courts," states Debtor discharged over $600,000 in debt owed to creditors, and explains the "without prejudice" dismissal was appealable because "the deficiency cannot be corrected." In addition, the opinion cites a prior Third Circuit case in which it explained that, in these circumstances, dismissing on judicial estoppel grounds "preserve[s] the integrity of the earlier proceedings" and a lesser sanction "would send a message that a debtor should consider disclosing potential assets only if he is caught concealing them." While the district court dismissed on multiple grounds, the Third Circuit's opinion only addresses judicial estoppel.
- Facts:
- In 2021 and 2022, Debtor/Appellant Norman Scott, Sr. filed two pro se employment discrimination cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against his employer, Appellee The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. In February 2023, Debtor filed a pro se chapter 7 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. He didn't disclose his cases against Appellee on his bankruptcy schedules and his case closed with a discharge. In May 2023, Appellee moved to dismiss the discrimination cases pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel (among other grounds), contending dismissal was warranted based on Debtor's failure to disclose the employment discrimination claims/cases on his schedules. Debtor asked the district court to stay the motions to dismiss because he'd moved to reopen his bankruptcy case to amend his schedules to disclose the discrimination cases. The district court instead dismissed both discrimination cases, without prejudice, on judicial estoppel and other grounds. Debtor appealed in each discrimination case and the Third Circuit consolidated the pro se appeals.
- Judge(s):
- Krause, Matey, Chung
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
