Opinion ID: 2723940
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Judicial Admission

Text: In order to ensure that the case will proceed properly on remand, we pause to address the court’s ruling that Kay had made a judicial admission. Paragraph 10 of Kay’s complaint states: “Plaintiff began working for defendant in 1995 as an assistant controller.” The district court read this sentence to mean that “Plaintiff admits in his Complaint that Phoenix and Defendant [i.e., Minacs] are the same. This is a judicial admission that Phoenix and Defendant have substantial similarities of operation and continuity, thus the arbitration agreement is binding on the parties.” We disagree. “[U]nder federal law, stipulations and admissions in the pleadings are generally binding on the parties and the Court. Not only are such admissions and stipulations binding before the trial court, but they are binding on appeal as well.” Ferguson v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 780 F.2d 549, 551 (6th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). “Factual assertions in pleadings . . . , unless amended, are considered judicial admissions conclusively binding on the party who made them.” Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Barnes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 201 F.3d 815, 829 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Lacelaw, 861 F.2d at 226). However, a statement must be “deliberate, clear and unambiguous” and “‘expressly concede . . . an alleged fact’” in order to be treated as a judicial admission. MacDonald v. Gen. Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337, 340 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Belculfine, 527 F.2d 941, 944 (1st Cir. 1975)). The requirements for a judicial admission are not satisfied by the record. Even under a deferential standard of review, “Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 1995 as an assistant controller,” is not sufficiently deliberate or clear to qualify as an express concession that “Phoenix and [Minacs] are the same.” The briefing and record before the district court made -6- No. 13-1974 Kay v. The Minacs Group clear that Kay did not work for Minacs in 1995, that he worked for Phoenix, that Phoenix and Minacs are not “the same” as a matter of fact, and Kay that did not intend to concede this “fact.” The court abused its discretion when it treated Paragraph 10 of Kay’s complaint as a judicial admission. See MacDonald, 110 F.3d at 340.