In re: Bill Martin Parker
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re: SWING HOUSE REHEARSAL AND RECORDING, INC. AND Philip Joseph Jaurigui (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2023)
- U.S. Dep't of Educ. v. Carrion (In re Carrion) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2019)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Albert P. Wilcox appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP) decision 1 affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that he was not entitled to the benefit of judicial estoppel in his pursuit of a fraud claim against Bill Martin Parker. We affirm. 2
The BAP’s opinion upholding the bankruptcy court’s decision is concise and persuasive. We, therefore, adopt its discussion and determination that on the facts of this case the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply. 3
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Wilcox v. Parker (In re Parker), 471 B.R. 570 (9th Cir. BAP 2012).
. We review the BAP’s decision de novo. See Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). The bankruptcy court's legal conclusions are likewise reviewed de novo, and its "decision whether to invoke judicial estoppel is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Wolfe v. Jacobson (In re Jacobson), 676 F.3d 1193, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012).
. In his reply brief, Wilcox asserts that Parker commenced his bankruptcy action in bad faith. He did not raise that claim before the BAP or in his opening brief. We decline to consider it. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.