U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009

Laisure-Radke v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Laisure-Radke v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided February 20, 2009 · Ezra, Fletcher, Rawlinson
313 F. App'x 32

Counsel

Karen Kathryn Koehler, Esquire, Strit-matter Kessler Whelan Withey & Coluccio, Seattle, WA, Fred H. Shepherd, Esquire, Arnold Anderson Vickery, Esquire, Paul F. Waldner, Esquire, Vickery Waldner & Mallia, LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., John R. Ipsaro, Esquire, Jeffrey R. Schaefer, Esquire, Mary Lynn Tate, Esquire, Joseph Thomas, Esquire, Ulmer & Berne, Cincinnati, OH, Jeffrey Royal Johnson, Carin A. Marney, Esquire, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Laisure-Radke v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Opinion of the Court

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 *34Laisure-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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.