Opinion ID: 725141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does a Favorable Settlement Constitute Success?

Text: 12 Under what is sometimes termed the majority view of the doctrine of judicial estoppel, the prior inconsistent statement must have been actually adopted by the court in the earlier litigation. Yanez, 989 F.2d at 326. Here, plaintiff did not obtain an actual judgment based on her prior statement. No court ruled upon the truth of plaintiff's claim. Rather, plaintiff settled her workers' compensation claim with defendants insurer, and the settlement was then approved by the workers' compensation appeals board. Plaintiff then received total temporary disability benefits for over two years. It therefore cannot be said literally that her prior statement was actually adopted by any court or administrative tribunal. But see 2 B.E. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Workers' Compensation § 357 (9th ed.1987) (an approved workers' compensation settlement has the force of a litigated judgment). 13 It can, however, be said that plaintiff succeeded or prevailed on her workers' compensation claim. We are thus confronted with the question whether obtaining a favorable settlement is equivalent to winning a judgment for purposes of applying judicial estoppel. 5 We answer in the affirmative. In our view, the fact that plaintiff prevailed by obtaining a favorable settlement rather than a judgment should have no more relevance than in the context of civil rights attorney's fees awards, i.e., none whatever. See Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980) (party who obtains consent decree is prevailing party no less than one who obtains a judgment on the merits). 14 That analogy was invoked by the Seventh Circuit in Kale v. Obuchowski, 985 F.2d 360 (7th Cir.1993), to estop a party who in prior divorce proceedings had disclaimed any interest in certain property from claiming an interest in that property during his alleged partner's bankruptcy proceedings. That party had not won a judgment in the divorce case, but the prior statement had inured to his benefit in the forum of a favorable settlement; the property settlement was made and approved by the court on the basis that he did not have an interest in the property in question. Id. at 361. The court rejected the argument that a judicial decision was required, stating that [p]ersons who triumph by inducing their opponents to surrender have 'prevailed' as surely as persons who induce the judge to grant summary judgment. Id. at 362 (citing Maher v. Gagne, supra). 15 We hold that a favorable settlement constitutes the success required under the so-called majority view. 6 It is thus unnecessary to decide whether to adopt the majority or minority version of the judicial estoppel doctrine. 16