GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; ESTOPPEL – In General

Single Topic for Decision A497M

View all topics for Decision A497M

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

The doctrine of judicial estoppel prohibits a party from successfully taking inconsistent positions in the same or different judicial proceedings. (Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719, pp. 36-37 (Alliance) (judicial appeal pending); Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181 (Jackson).) Judicial estoppel applies when (1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake. (Alliance, supra, p. 37, citing Jackson, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 183.) The doctrine’s purpose is to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing parties from playing fast and loose with the courts. (Alliance, supra, p. 37, citing Jackson, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 181.) In this matter, the Board declined to consider whether the City should be estopped from asserting it cannot apply PERB Regulations because the Association failed to fully raise or argue the matter, nor was it addressed in an earlier order to show cause. (pp. 26-27.)