- 23 -
the State court suit, the jury accepted the position of MMC
(petitioner here) that it was an independent entity. Moreover,
the special verdict found that the written agreements between
petitioner and the related entities were valid and enforceable,
and that the luxury automobiles and other personal property
belonged to petitioner. These findings were wholly inconsistent
with petitioner's position in the instant proceedings that the
property was purchased by petitioner as an agent for Ohanesian
and the related entities.
The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party to a
judicial proceeding from taking a position contrary to one it
took and persuaded a court to accept in an earlier proceeding.
See Huddleston v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 17, 26-29 (1993). The
doctrine of judicial estoppel focuses on the relationship between
a party and the courts; it seeks to preserve the integrity of the
judicial process by preventing a party from successfully
asserting one position before a court and thereafter asserting a
contradictory position before the same or another court merely
because it is now in that party's interest to do so. Id. at 26.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has
explained that the doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party
from "abusing the judicial process through cynical gamesmanship,
achieving success on one position, then arguing the opposite to
suit an exigency of the moment." Teledyne Indus. v. NLRB, 911
F.2d 1214, 1218 (6th Cir. 1990). In these circumstances it would
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011