FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMIDA RIVERA, No. 12-16474
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01695-KJD-PAL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of
America, NA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Armida Rivera appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rivera’s action
on the basis of judicial estoppel because Rivera’s position in her complaint is
clearly inconsistent with her statement in the bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy
court accepted her prior position in granting her a discharge. See Hamilton v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth the
standard of review and explaining the doctrine of judicial estoppel). Accepting
Rivera’s current, inconsistent position would provide her with an unfair advantage
in light of the bankruptcy discharge. See id. at 782 (“Judicial estoppel is an
equitable doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an advantage by asserting
one position, and then later seeking an advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent
position.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-16474