RICHARD K. GOTTLIEB v. MICHAEL KEST
Filed 7/10/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| RICHARD K. GOTTLIEB, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. MICHAEL KEST, Individually and as Trustee, etc., Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. | B178729 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC246040) |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Susan Bryant-Deason, Judge. Reversed.
Tesser & Ruttenberg and Brian M. Grossman for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.
Raymond L. Asher for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.
___________________________________________
Story Continue from Part I ………..
Thus, a litigant seeking to invoke judicial estoppel typically is not required to make a showing of privity or detrimental reliance. (See Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015–1016; Conrad v. Bank of America (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 133, 151, overruled on another point in Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 85, 92–94; Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc. (5th Cir. 2005) 412 F.3d 598, 600; Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. (11th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1282, 1286, followed in Transamerica v. Institute of London Underwriters (11th Cir. 2005) 430 F.3d 1326, 1335; Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co. (3d Cir. 1996) 81 F.3d 355, 358–361 (Ryan Operations); Autos, Inc. v. Gowin (D.Kan. 2005) 330 B.R. 788, 794 & fn. 2, motion to amend judg. den. (D.Kan. 2005) 332 B.R. 628.)
â€
