BAD FAITH

Issues

Respondents Leroy Haeger, et. al (“the Haegers”) were injured during a vehicle accident as a result of a failed tire, which was manufactured by Petitioner Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”). After the case settled, the Haegers discovered that Goodyear did not disclose several tests that it performed on the tire; the Haegers then moved the court to sanction Goodyear for its discovery misconduct. The district court relied on its inherent powers to sanction Goodyear and its counsel. Goodyear argues that the Supreme Court should limit inherent authority sanctions to those fees and costs directly caused by the claimed misconduct. The Haegers argue that although compensatory damages must be causally linked to the sanctioned misconduct, when the sanctionable misconduct is not limited to a single, discrete instance, but instead is so pervasive as to undermine or affect the whole litigation, an award of the entire amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the party who is victim to the misconduct may be appropriate to compensate that party. The outcome of this case could potentially affect the scope of district courts’ inherent power to impose sanctions for discovery misconduct, when the courts cannot rely on the Rules or other statutory authority. The case will show whether a more exacting causation standard or a more discretionary standard should be used by the district court to impose sanctions under its inherent powers. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a bankruptcy debtor who fails to disclose a civil claim during bankruptcy proceedings can later pursue that claim in federal court. The case also asks whether courts can prohibit undisclosed claims when a bankruptcy trustee, instead of the debtor, seeks to continue the lawsuit. Keathley argues that the Fifth Circuit’s rigid judicial estoppel test is inconsistent with equitable principles and suggests a flexible, totality of the circumstances approach that allows debtors to correct mistakes without forfeiting valuable claims. On the other hand, Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. contends that an objective judicial estoppel rule best aligns with bankruptcy’s goal of protecting creditors while conditioning a debtor’s fresh start on full disclosure of known assets. The Court’s decision has sweeping implications for debtors and creditors and fairness in bankruptcy proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources