Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Elaine E. Bucklo Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 04 C 1051 DATE 5/23/2011

CASE

TITLE

Bullock vs. Dart

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants’ Motion to Bar Plaintiff Reid from Taking Award [471] is granted.

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

*Mail AO 450 form.

STATEMENT

In March 2011, the parties in this suit entered into a settlement

agreement. One term of the agreement stipulated that Reid was to receive

an “incentive award” of $25,000 for serving as one of the representatives

for the plaintiff class. Defendants later discovered that, during

bankruptcy proceedings in 2010, Reid certified that he had no legal claims

of any value. Defendants claim that Reid’s debts were ultimately discharged

on the basis of the latter representation, and that, as a result, he is now

judicially estopped from recovering the incentive award. I agree.

“Judicial estoppel provides that a party who prevails on one ground in

a prior proceeding cannot turn around and deny that ground in a subsequent

one.” Medmarc Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avent America, Inc., 612 F.3d 607, 613 (7th

Cir. 2010). “It is an equitable concept designed to protect the integrity

of the judicial process and “to prevent litigants from playing fast and

loose with the courts.” Butler v. Village of Round Lake Police Dept., 585

F.3d 1020, 1022 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“Its purpose is to prevent a litigant from prevailing twice on opposite

theories.” Id.

Reid maintains that the omission of the claim during the bankruptcy

proceedings was inadvertent. Except for his say-so, however, he offers no

evidence in support of this contention. Reid additionally relies on the

fact that he has recently been given permission by the bankruptcy court to

reopen his case and to report the $25,000 payment. Thus, he argues that his

bankruptcy action will be modified and his previous omission of the payment

will not benefit him. Once again, however, Reid’s assertions are based

04C1051 Bullock vs. Dart Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

largely on his own speculations. Indeed, even if Reid’s contention is true

and he ultimately does not benefit from the omission, the Seventh Circuit

has made clear that judicial estoppel still applies. As the court has

explained:

a debtor who receives even preliminary benefits from concealing

a chose in action from his creditors can still be estopped from

pursuing the suit in the future. To hold otherwise would give

debtors an incentive to game the bankruptcy system. Debtors

could take a wait-and-see approach to disclosure by prosecuting

an undisclosed claim while waiting to see how favorably the

bankruptcy proceeding unfolds before discharge. That approach

would undermine both the primary aim of judicial estoppel, which

is to protect the integrity of the judicial process, and the

bankruptcy law’s goal of unearthing all assets for the benefit of

creditors.

Williams v. Hainje, 375 Fed. App’x. 625, 628 (7th Cir 2010) (citations

omitted). 

 For these reasons, defendants’ motion to bar is granted.

04C1051 Bullock vs. Dart Page 2 of 2