Weakley v. Eagle Logistics
- Summarized by William Amann , Amann Burnett, PLLC
- 7 years 8 months ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 17-1402(2)3, DC Docket No 3:16-cv-00403-HNJ (11th Circuit, Jun 29,2018) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Because the district court considered all the facts and circumstances of
Weakley’s cases in determining whether he intended to mislead the bankruptcy
court, see id. at 1185, it did not abuse its discretion by applying judicial estoppel
and dismissing these two lawsuits that he failed to disclose in his bankruptcy
proceeding. See Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174, 1180 n.4 (11th Cir.
2017) (en banc); Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th
Cir. 2010);
- Procedural context:
- In this consolidated appeal, Timothy Weakley appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment against him in favor of Eagle Logistics Services and
Celadon Trucking Services, and its grant of summary judgment against him (in a
separate lawsuit) in favor of Jennifer Roberts and Quality Companies. Weakley
contends that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his two lawsuits
based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel as a result of Weakley’s failure to
disclose them in his bankruptcy proceeding.
- Facts:
- In concluding that Weakley intentionally misled the bankruptcy court, the
district court considered that he not only failed to include the two lawsuits in his
initial bankruptcy filings but he also failed to include them in any of the six
separate amendments that he made to his schedules and filings during the
bankruptcy proceeding. The court pointed out that it was not until the defendants
in both lawsuits had relied on his failure to disclose as grounds for dismissal of the lawsuits that Weakley finally amended his bankruptcy filings to disclose those two
lawsuits and the claims they asserted. The court also considered his ability to
benefit financially at his creditors’ expense by concealing the two lawsuits. Not
only that but Weakley had disclosed as assets in the bankruptcy proceeding two
other lawsuits he had filed, both of which were of much lesser potential value than
the two nondisclosed ones, which together sought damages in excess of
$14,000,000. The district court reasoned that his failure to disclose the two higher
claim lawsuits while disclosing the other two lesser claim ones “indicates a motive
to exclude the potentially more lucrative, non-exempt [lawsuit assets] from the
bankruptcy proceedings.” Finally, the court took into account the fact that
Weakley had filed four other bankruptcy petitions, “demonstrating that [he] should
have been familiar with the requirements.”
- Judge(s):
- Carnes, CJ Marcus, Rosenbaum
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!
