Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Frederick J. Kapala Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 50234 DATE 3/15/2013

CASE

TITLE

Dominguez v. Anderson Packaging, Inc.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Bernard J. Natale’s motion to reopen and substitute plaintiff [24] is granted. The clerk is directed to substitute

Natale’s name into the caption. The case is reopened.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

Aldo Dominguez, the named plaintiff in the complaint who initiated this case, alleges that defendant,

Anderson Packaging, Inc., discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. However, on December 5, 2012, this court found that Dominguez’ claims accrued prior

to, and during, his declaration of, and subsequent discharge under, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The court ruled that

the claim against defendant was property of the bankruptcy estate such that it could only be brought by, and in

the name of, the bankruptcy trustee. Accordingly, the court dismissed this case for lack of standing. Currently

before the court is a motion by the bankruptcy trustee, Bernard J. Natale, to reopen the case and substitute his

name as plaintiff so that he may attempt to collect on the potential asset and distribute its proceeds to Dominguez’

creditors. Defendant objects, arguing that the trustee was aware of this case for several months before moving

to substitute himself—including during the litigation concerning the motion to dismiss—and therefore this court

should deny the motion based on the delay. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the trustee’s motion.

In this court’s previous order, it first considered whether to dismiss the case with prejudice based on

judicial estoppel. Judicial estoppel precludes parties from abandoning positions taken in earlier litigation. Himel

v. Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi., 596 F.2d 205, 210 (7th Cir. 1979). Because Dominguez had

previously indicated in his bankruptcy that he had no other assets, thereby neglecting to mention the current

litigation, defendant had raised judicial estoppel, along with standing, in its answer and motion to dismiss on the

pleadings. Nevertheless, the court noted that “[j]udicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, and it is not equitable

to employ it to injure creditors who are themselves victims of the debtor’s deceit.” Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453

F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir. 2006). Instead, the court limited its holding to finding that Dominguez himself lacked

standing to pursue the case and dismissed his claims to permit the trustee to determine how to handle the estate’s

property so as to best protect the interests of the creditors.

Now, the trustee has filed a motion to alter the dismissal and to substitute himself as the plaintiff. 

Although the court understands and shares defendant’s frustration over the delay caused by the trustee’s failure

to intervene prior to the motion to dismiss, it would be inequitable to Dominguez’ creditors to bar the suit based

on the relatively short delay caused by the trustee’s failure. Indeed, the court notes that when the trustee filed the

motion to alter the judgment, the statute of limitations on the suit had not yet run, although defendant contests

12 C 50234 Dominguez v. Anderson Packaging, Inc. Page 1 of 2
that it has run at this point. Because the trustee could have simply filed a separate suit that day with himself as

the plaintiff rather than move to alter the judgment, the court sees no point in arguing over which procedural

device should be used to move the case forward. In short, the court dismissed the case because the wrong plaintiff

brought it, and while still within time to file a separate suit and start all over again, the correct plaintiff sought

to intervene and reopen the case. This both cures the defect in standing highlighted in the court’s previous order

and effectuates a solution that protects the creditors in an equitable way. In light of the foregoing, the equities

clearlyweigh in favor of reopening the case and permitting the litigation to go forward. Accordingly, the trustee’s

motion is granted.

12 C 50234 Dominguez v. Anderson Packaging, Inc. Page 2 of 2