Kaufman Ex Rel. Kaufman v. Robinson Property Group Ltd. Partnership

373 F. App'x 494
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 22, 2010
Docket09-60758
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 373 F. App'x 494 (Kaufman Ex Rel. Kaufman v. Robinson Property Group Ltd. Partnership) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kaufman Ex Rel. Kaufman v. Robinson Property Group Ltd. Partnership, 373 F. App'x 494 (5th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Glo Kaufman, proceeding pro se, appeals a summary judgment that is based on judicial estoppel. Finding no error, we affirm.

The facts and initial proceedings are described in the prior opinion of this court, Kaufman v. Robinson Property Group Limited Partnership, 331 Fed.Appx. 276 (5th Cir.2008) (per curiam). After remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the basis of judicial estoppel.

The district court explicated its ruling in a thorough and reliable Memorandum Opinion filed May 15, 2009. It explained that Kaufman thought she had a valid personal injury claim when she filed her bankruptcy petition but failed to include the potential claim in her required bankruptcy statements. The court properly reasoned that “there is clear inconsistency between stating by omission on her March 16, 2006 bankruptcy petition ... that she had no claims arising from her alleged January 31, 2003 injury and pursuing those claims before this court beginning with the filing of her March 26, 2007 Complaint.” The court further noted that “ ‘[ajlleged confusion as to a limitations period does not evince a lack of knowledge as to the existence of the claim’ ” (citing In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir.2004)).

Kaufman did not properly pursue her purported claim. Her inconsistent positions result in judicial estoppel. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cut. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cut. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kaufman v. Robinson Property Group Ltd. Partnership
178 L. Ed. 2d 205 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
373 F. App'x 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-ex-rel-kaufman-v-robinson-property-group-ltd-partnership-ca5-2010.