Opinion ID: 72294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: 1 The Talaveras brought suit against several individual defendants, as well. On appeal, they pursue only their claims against the school board. 2 The school board also seeks summary judgment on the ground that Talavera was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA when the alleged violations occurred. The school board did not raise this argument before the district court; therefore, we will not consider it now. See Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556, 564 (11th Cir.1996). We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the district court. Scala v. City of Winter Park, 116 F.3d 1396, 1398 (11th Cir.1997). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. The school board argues that we should review the district court's application of judicial estoppel for abuse of discretion. See McNemar v. Disney Store, Inc., 91 F.3d 610, 616-17 (3rd Cir.1996) (applying abuse of discretion review), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 958, 136 L.Ed.2d 845 (1997); Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir.1993) (same). Although this circuit has not explicitly identified the applicable standard of review, the language in the few Eleventh Circuit cases involving judicial estoppel is consistent with abuse of discretion review. See, e.g., Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Rebhan, 842 F.2d 1257, 1261 (11th Cir.1988) (We think it proper simply to review the bankruptcy court's application of judicial estoppel to ascertain whether it was consonant with the policy interests which originally gave rise to the doctrine.). We note that [t]he abuse of discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions. Koon v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 2048, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996).