### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A pril 1 8, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1649 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00086 -CV -2
MORR IS E. MUSE, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us ACCORD HUMAN RESOURC ES, INC., PEACHTREE PEST CONTROL COMP ANY, INC., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 18, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , H U L L a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Under the bankr uptcy plan, there was a

60-month repa

y ment period that e x pired on 1 November

11, 2002. 2 Plaintiff Morr is E. Muse appeals the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t t o de fe ndants A cc or d H um anRe sour ce s, I nc . a nd P ea ch tr ee P es t Control, Inc. (collectively ref erre d to as “ defendants”) in his action to rec over
un pa id wage s u nd er t he Fai r Lab orSta nd ard s Act (“ FLSA”). Aft er re vi ew, we
co n cl u d e t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt er re di n ap p l yin g ju d i ci al es t o p p el t o b arMu s e’s unpa id w ag e cl ai m . T hus, w e re ve rs e the gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t. I. BACK GROUND O n N ove m

be r 7, 199 7, Mu se c om

m en ce d aCh ap te r 13 b an kr upt cy a ct ion
an d f ile d asc he dul e of

a sse ts unde r oa th. T he bankr upt cy plan w as c onf

irm ed on Apr il 7, 199 8. Mu se w as dis ch ar ge d f ro m de bt o n A ugus t 8, 200 3, a nd h is 1 ba nk rupt cy

cas e was clo se d o n J un e 2 5, 2 00 4. From on or about Janu ary

3, 2000 to Septem

ber 6, 2002 , Muse w as
em plo y ed by the de fe ndants . O n Ju ne 6, 200 3, Mu se f ile d th is a ct ionpur suant t o the F ai r L ab or

S tandard s A ct

se ek ing to re co ve r unpa id o ve rt im e w ag es a lle ge dly
ow ed to him by de fe ndants f

ro m January 3, 200 0 un til S ep te m

be r 6, 200 2. T hus, Mus e’ s w ag e cl ai m

did not a ri se unt il af

te r his bankr

upt cy plan w as c onf

irm ed in 1998
. A lth oughhis w ag e cl ai m did a ri se be fo re his bankr

upt cy c as e w as c los ed ,3

Mus e did not a m en d hi s sc he dul e of

a sse ts t o r ef

le ct his w ag e cl ai m

a ga ins t the de fe ndants . InS ep te m

be r 2004 , the de fe ndants in the unp ai d w ag e cl ai m sui t f ile d a
m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t ba se d onthe doc tr ine of j udi ci al e sto ppe l. T he defendants asserted that by not list ing hi s wage claim in his bank ruptcy

schedule, Muse had taken the pos ition that he had no wage cla im in the bankrup tcy proceeding. Judicial estoppel precludes a party from asserting a claim

in a legal pr oc ee din g th at

is inc onsi ste nt w ithac la im ta ke n by tha t party

in a pr ev iou s proceeding. Burnes v. Pem co Ae roplex, Inc. , 291 F. 3d 12 82, 1285 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). I n th e co nte xt o f a ba nkr upt cy c as e, j udi ci al e sto ppe l bars apla int if f fr om asserting claim s previousl y undis closed to the bank ruptcy court wher e the plaintiff both knew about the claim s and had a m otive to con ceal them from the bankruptcy
co ur t. DeLeo n v . Com car I nd us ., Inc ., 32 1 F .3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). On N ovem

ber 10, 2004, the district court granted the defendants’ summ ary j udgm en t m oti on. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed tha t M use ’ s unpa id w ag e cl ai m
w as barr ed

by the doc tr ine of

j udi ci al e sto ppe l be ca

use Mu se ha d ape ndi ng Ch ap te r 13 b an kr

upt cy a ct iona nd a

c onf irm ed bankr upt cy plan ine xis te nc e at

the tim e his unp ai d w ag e cl ai m a ro se a nd h e did

not dis cl ose his unp ai d w ag e cl ai m to the bankr upt cy c ourt. Mu se appe al ed
.Se c tio n 1 30 6 s tate s in re le va nt p art : 2 (a) Property

of the estate i ncludes, in addition to the property specifie d in section 541 of this titl e . . . (2) e arning s from services performe d by the debtor a fter the commence ment of the case but before the ca se i s closed, dism issed, or converted to a case unde r cha pter 7, 11 , o r 1 2 o f t

his tit le , w hic he ve r o c c ur s f ir st. 11 U.S.C. § 1306. Section 1327(b) state s: “Except as otherwise provided in the plan or the orde r conf

irming the plan, the c onfirmation of a plan vests all of the pr operty of the e state in the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 1327(b).
4 II. D ISCU SSION T he iss ue in thi s c as e is whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y he ld tha t M use
w as j udi ci al ly

e sto ppe d f

ro m a sse rt ing his unp ai d w ag e cl ai m w he n M use f

ai le d to d i s cl o s e t h at cl ai m

t o t h e b an kru p t cy co u rt . Th e a n s we r i s n o , b ec au s e M u s e’s unpa id w ag e cl ai m

a ro se a ft er

c onf irm at ionof

the bankr

upt cy plan, w as not

part of the bankr upt cy e sta te , a nd, thu s, Mu se did not ha ve aduty

to dis cl ose it
. In T elfair v. Fir st Union Mortgage Corp., 216 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2000), thi s C ourt ana ly ze d 11 U
. S. C. §§ 1 306 an d 13 27( b) , the tw o pr ovi sio ns o f the Bankr upt cy Co de tha t de te rm ine w ha t c onst itu te s pr ope rty of the e sta te f

oll ow ing confirm ation of the bankrup tcy plan. A fter a

thoroug h analy sis, the T elfair Court 2 held that assets acquired pos t-confirm ation are not property of the bankruptcy
es ta te unl es s th ey

a re ne ce ssary

to m ai nta in the bankr

upt cy plan. T el fa ir , 216 F
. 3d at 134 0. I n do ing so, thi s C ourt st at ed :5

W e . . . r ea d the tw o se ct ion s, 1306 (a )( 2) an d 13 27( b) , to m ean si m ply tha t w hil e the f

ili ng o f the pe tit ionf

or bankr upt cy pla ce s a ll the pr ope rty of the de bt or in the c ontro l of the bankr

upt cy c ourt, the plan up on confirm ation returns so m uch of that property to the debto r’ s control as is n ot n ec es sa ry

to the f ulf ill m en t of the plan. Id. ( internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). Inthe ins tant c as e, c onf

irm at ionof

the bankr

upt cy plan oc cu rr ed

on Apr il 7, 1998
. Appl y ing T el fa ir , a ny pr ope rty int er es t a cquir ed

by Mu se a ft er

Apr il 7, 1998 , w hic h w as not

ne ce ssary

to fu lf ill the plan, be cam e the pr ope rty of the debtor (Muse). T he unpaid wage claim arose in January

2000 , nearly

two y ears af te r co nf irm at iona nd the re is no a sse rt iontha t those a sse rt s w er e ne ce ssary to
m ee t the te rm s of

the bankr

upt cy plan. T he re fo re , the unp ai d w ag e cl ai m w as not part of the bankruptcy

estate. Bec ause it wa s not part of the bankrupt cy estate, Mus e ha d no duty

to dis cl ose it
. T w o r ec en t bankr upt cy c ourt de ci sio ns i n ou r circuit w ith nearly

identical facts support our conclus ion in this case. In In re Carter, 258 B.R. 526, 527 (Bankr. S .D . G a. 2001 ), the debtors filed for Chapter 13 bank ruptcy on July6, 1995, and their bankruptcy plan was
co nf irm ed on N ove m

be r 21, 199 5. T he de bto rs r ec ei ve d adis ch ar ge on Apr il 18, 2000 , a nd the c as e w as c los ed on M ay 10, 200 0. O n O ct obe r 17, 199 8, the de bto rs w er e inv olv ed in anauto m obi le c oll isi on, and they subsequ ently

filed suit against th e driver of the other vehicle. The driver ,6

de fe ndant i n th e tort a ct ion , f ile d am oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t ba se d onthe doctrine of j udicial estopp el, asserting that the debto rs had taken the posit ion th at the y ha d no tor

t c la im in the bankr

upt cy pr oc ee din g be ca

use the ir sc he dul es did not li st i t. I d. I n r es pons e to the de fe ndant dri ve r’ s m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, the de bto rs f

ile d am oti on i n th e ba nkr upt cy c ourt t o r eo pe n th e ba nkr upt cy c as e in
or de r to am en d t he ir s ch edul es to refl ect th e to rt c la im
. The bankruptcy

court in In re C arter

determ ined that the tort claim , w hich
ar ose in 1998 a lm ost

thr ee y ears a ft er

c onf irm at ionof

the plan in199 5, w as not
ne ce ssary f or the plan, a nd thus w as not part of the bankr

upt cy e sta te . I d. B ec au se the tor t c la im w as not part of the bankr

upt cy e sta te , the de bto rs ha d no duty to dis cl ose the c la im
. A nd b ec au se the de bto rs ha d no duty to dis cl ose the tor

t c la im in the bankr

upt cy c as e, pur sui ng the tor

t c la im in sta te c ourt w as not

inc onsi ste nt with their positio n in bank ruptcy court. Thus, the bankruptcy court in In re C arter he ld tha t the de bto rs w er e not j udi ci al ly

e sto ppe d f

ro m pur sui ng the ir

tor t c la im and there w as no need to reopen their bankrupt cy case. In determ ining that j udi ci al e sto ppe l w as ina ppl ic ab le , the bankr

upt cy c ourt st at ed

a s f oll ow s: Judicial estop pel is inappl icable because the po st plan confirm ation tort claim wa s sim ply not invo lved in the bankrupt cy case. The debtors had no r ea son m

uc h le ss obl iga tio n to dis cl ose it. T he tort c la im be lon gs t o the debtors and no t the bankrupt cy estate.7

Id . at 5 28 (em

ph as is ad de d)
. Sim ilarly , in In r e Ross, 278 B. R. 269 (Bankr. M. D. Ga . 2001), the debtors filed for C hapter 13 bankrup tcy on February

19, 1998 and th eir bankruptcy plan
w as c onf irm ed on M ay 14, 199 8. T he de bto rs ’ bankr upt cy c as e w as dis m iss ed

in A ugus t 19 99. I n M ar ch199 9, one of the de bto rs w as inv olv ed in anauto m obi le
ac ci de nt and s he sub se que ntl y f ile d su it se ek ing to re co ve r tort dam ag es a s ar es ult of the autom obile accident. I d. at 270. The def endant filed a m otion for sum m ary j udgm en t onthe gr ound

tha t the doc tr ine of

j udi ci al e sto ppe l barr ed

the de bto r fr om pur sui ng h er

tor t c la im be ca use she f ai le d to li st the c la im

on h er sc he dul es . Following the bank ruptcy court in In re C arter , the bankruptcy court in In re Ross held th at j udicial estopp el w as inapplicable. T he In re Ross bankrup tcy court sta te d th at

“ nond isc los ur e of

the c la im in the bankr

upt cy c as e is n ot i nc onsi ste nt
w itha sse rt ing the c la im

in an oth er

f or um . ” Ro ss, 278 B. R. a t 27 5. W e ar e, of

c our se , bou nd t o f

oll owT el fa ir , a nd i n do ing so, w e ag re e w ith the r ea soni ng o f the bankr upt cy c ourts i n I n r e Cart er

a nd I n r e Ro ss. T he unp ai d
w ag e cl ai m

a ro se in Ja nuary

200 0, ne ar ly

tw o y ears a ft er

plan c onf

irm at ionin April 1998, and there is no assertion that it was nece ssary for the plan. Ther efore, the unp ai d w ag e cl ai m

w as not part of the bankr

upt cy e sta te , Mu se ha d no duty to dis cl ose it , a nd M use is not j udi ci al ly

e sto ppe d f

ro m br ing ing his unp ai d w ag e8

cl ai m a ga ins t the de fe ndants in thi s c as e. S ee Ro ss, 278 B. R. a t 27 5; C ar te r, 258 B. R. a t 52 8; s ee a lso T el fa ir , 216 F
. 3d a t 13 40. A cc or din gly , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o the defendants based on judicial estopp el and rem and this case for further pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. REVERSED AND REMANDED.