- 20 -
In Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, supra at 601,
the court stated: “This Circuit has not yet had occasion to
decide whether to follow the ‘majority’ view or the ‘minority’
view.” (Fn. ref. omitted.) In that case, like the instant case,
it was unnecessary to decide which view is correct. The court in
Rissetto had to consider whether the obtaining of a favorable
settlement in the earlier proceeding would be sufficient to
satisfy the “majority view” requirement that the inconsistent
statement was actually adopted by the court in the earlier
litigation. The court stated:
We are thus confronted with the question whether
obtaining a favorable settlement is equivalent to
winning a judgment for purposes of applying judicial
estoppel. We answer in the affirmative. In our view,
the fact that plaintiff prevailed by obtaining a
favorable settlement rather than a judgment should have
no more relevance than in the context of civil rights
attorney’s fees awards, i.e., none whatever. See Maher
v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570 * * * (1980)
(party who obtains consent decree is “prevailing party”
no less than one who obtains a judgment on the merits).
[Id. at 604-605; fn. ref. omitted; emphasis added.]
Petitioner obtained a substantial settlement of the District
Court litigation on the basis of the factual assertion that
decedent was entitled to the legal or beneficial ownership of
56.7 percent of the issued and outstanding capital of PCAB. In
the District Court litigation, decedent had asserted a value of
her interest on the basis of full ownership rights. Petitioner’s
expert report filed in the District Court litigation valued her
interest in PCAB at the time of the 1987 redemption between
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011