5
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
5 / 5
Mentions
on that either the earlier or later court was misled.5 731 F.3d at 1182. On September 18, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit issued its en banc decision in Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 4110047 (11th Cir. Sep. 18, 2017)(en banc), which reexamined judicial estoppel jurisprudence in the Eleven
stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit
on that either the earlier or later court was misled.5 731 F.3d at 1182. On September 18, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit issued its en banc decision in Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 4110047 (11th Cir. Sep. 18, 2017)(en banc), which reexamined judicial estoppel jurisprudence in the Eleven
stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit
ith a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding." Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2002), overruled in part, Slater v. United States Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174, 1176-77 (11th Cir. 2017). It is "an equitable concept intended to prevent the perversion of the judicia
F.2d 1324, 20 EFTA00299040 1325 (9th Cir. 1975). As this Court has recognized, "a contracting party is the paradigm of an indispensable party." HDR Engineering, Inc. v. R.C.T. Engineering, Inc., No. 08- 81040-CIV-ICAM, 2010 WL 2402908, *2 (S.D.Fla. June 15, 2010) (citation omitted). "Parties to a contract are ind
al acceptance of the inconsistent later position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the filing of a civil court complaint as an earlier "proceeding," Epstein does n
Page: EFTA00021495 →istent position under oath in a separate proceeding, and (2) these inconsistent positions were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Slater v. United States Steel Corp. 871 F.3d 1174, 1181 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). It should be remembered that Jane Doe 1 and 2 were
Page: EFTA00021496 →al acceptance of the inconsistent later position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the filing of a civil court complaint as an earlier "proceeding," Epstein does n
Page: EFTA00022599 →istent position under oath in a separate proceeding, and (2) these inconsistent positions were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Slater v. United States Steel Corp. 871 F.3d 1174, 1181 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). It should be remembered that Jane Doe 1 and 2 were
Page: EFTA00022600 →Entities connected to both Slater and HDR Engineering, Inc.

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONLeon Black
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
George W. Bush
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSON
Alexander Acosta
PERSONMaria Farmer
PERSON
Paul Cassell
PERSON
A. Marie Villafana
PERSON
Marc Rich
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Michael Cohen
PERSON
the University of Utah
ORGANIZATION
Paul Ryan
PERSON
Harvey Weinstein
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATIONthe Eleventh Circuit
ORGANIZATION
Maine
LOCATION