Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02679/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02679-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2679

___________

Julia A. Strong, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

America’s Center Food Service *

Partners/Levy Restaurant Limited * [UNPUBLISHED]

Partnership, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2006

Filed: July 14, 2006 

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Julia A. Strong appeals the district court’s1

 application of judicial estoppel to

bar her employment-discrimination suit. Satisfied that the district court properly

exercised jurisdiction over this case, see Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328,

1331 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the case based upon judicial estoppel. Strong represented in

Appellate Case: 05-2679 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2006 Entry ID: 2067548
-2-

her earlier bankruptcy proceeding that she had no such suit, the bankruptcy court

relied on that representation in granting her a no-asset discharge, and allowing Strong

to proceed with this claim after her discharge would give her an unfair advantage.

See Stallings v. Hussman Corp., 447 F.3d 1041, 1046-49 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard

of review; factors informing court’s judicial-estoppel analysis); Barger v. City of

Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289, 1295-96 (11th Cir. 2003) (affirming application of

judicial estoppel in action against employer where plaintiff failed to list claims

against employer in bankruptcy schedule, "knew about the claims, and had a motive

to conceal them from the bankruptcy court" (internal marks omitted)); Burnes v.

Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. (In re Burnes), 291 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We

also deny Strong’s request for appointed appellate counsel. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2679 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2006 Entry ID: 2067548