Case Name: Karmel ROE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA NA, fka Countrywide Home Loans, and successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-21
Citations: 584 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 12-56425
Parties: Karmel ROE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA NA, fka Countrywide Home Loans, and successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
Karmel ROE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA NA, fka Countrywide Home Loans, and successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-56425.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
Filed Aug. 21, 2014.
• Karmel Roe, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.
Justin Donald Balser, Akerman Senter-fitt, Denver, CO, Bryan Leifer, Shiraz Si-monian, Akerman Senterfítt LLP, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Karmel Roe appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's application of judicial estoppel. Ah Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai Dep't of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir.2013). We vacate and remand.
After the district court dismissed Roe's action, we decided Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Department of Transportation, which remanded a dismissal on the basis of judicial estoppel where the plaintiff-debtor argued that she had omitted her claims from her bankruptcy schedules due to inadvertence or mistake. See id. at 279. Because the district court did not have the benefit of Ah Quin when it issued its order of dismissal, we remand to allow the district court to reconsider its application of judicial estoppel, including whether the bankruptcy court accepted Roe's nondisclosure and whether she would derive an unfair advantage if not estopped. See id. at 271 (noting that both factors are met where the debtor obtains a discharge or plan confirmation).
We deny as unnecessary Bank of America's request for judicial notice, filed on March 7, 2013, and Roe's request for judicial notice, filed on May 7, 2013.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.