Storms v. County of Monterey
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:20-cv-07913
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Storms v. County of Monterey, Judge Cousins ordered the County to explain why it should not be barred from contradicting prior concessions.
The County of Monterey was ordered to explain why it should not be judicially estopped from contradicting its prior concessions; the order concerns Richard Storms’s employment claims.
What happened
In Storms v. County of Monterey, the County had conceded that Richard Storms was qualified for his job, with or without accommodation, during all relevant periods. It also conceded that an April 26, 2019, formal notice of discipline was an adverse employment action.
The court said the County’s pretrial filings appeared to indicate that it intended to argue these issues again. The court ordered the County to appear on August 8, 2022, and explain why it should not be prevented from presenting evidence or arguments contrary to its earlier concessions.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins issued an order to show cause; he did not decide in this order whether the County would ultimately be prevented from contradicting its concessions.
The detailed version
- Storms v. County of Monterey · No. 5:20-cv-07913
- Nathanael Cousins
- Aug. 5, 2022
Background
In its opposition to Richard Storms’s motion for partial summary judgment, the County of Monterey conceded two points: first, that Storms was qualified for his job, with or without accommodation, during all relevant periods; and second, that the April 26, 2019, Formal Notice of Discipline was an adverse employment action.
The court stated that the parties’ pretrial filings appeared to show that the County intended to relitigate those issues.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered the County to appear in court on August 8, 2022, and explain why it should not be judicially estopped from presenting evidence or arguments contrary to its previous concessions. Judicial estoppel is a doctrine that can prevent a party from taking a position inconsistent with a position it previously accepted in the same litigation.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause. It did not make a final determination in this order that the County was judicially estopped, and it did not otherwise resolve the underlying employment issues.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.