LAW.coLAW.co

Yvonne ARae LAISURE-RADKE, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas Radke, deceased; Estate of Douglas Radke, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, and Pharmaceutical Resources, Inc.; Dr. ReddyS Laboratories Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendants-Appellees; Yvonne ARae Laisure-Radke, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas Radke, deceased; Estate of Douglas Radke, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Pharmaceutical Resources, Inc.; Dr. ReddyS Laboratories Inc., Defendants-Appellants

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2009-02-20No. Nos. 07-35443, 07-35495
313 F. App'x 32

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

MEMORANDUM

Y’vonne A’Rae Laisure-Radke appeals the district court’s order granting Pharmaceutical Resources, Inc.’s, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss. The district court held that judicial estoppel barred Laisure-Radke from asserting her claims against Defendants. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s application of judicial estoppel for an abuse of discretion. Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Because Laisure-Radke failed to disclose the existence of her claims against Defendants in her bankruptcy petition and obtained a discharge of her debts based on this failure to disclose, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that judicial estoppel barred Lai-sure-Radke’s claims. See id. at 784-85. That Laisure-Radke later moved to reopen her bankruptcy proceedings does not excuse her eai’lier failure to disclose; judicial estoppel ensures that debtors make a “full and honest disclosure” of their assets in the original bankruptcy proceeding. See id. at 785 (internal quotation omitted).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Laisure-Radke’s claims, we do not reach the issues raised in Defendants’ cross-appeal.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.