Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Winslett v. 1811 27th Ave., LLC, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239848/winslett-v-1811-27th-ave-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,255 chars

Ultimately, Sagi's position on the tenth cause of action rests on the argument that, in a brief filed in support of a discovery motion, Winslett admitted that this claim is based on the filing of an unlawful detainer action. Winslett does not deny that, in substance, her lawyers said as much in the offending brief, but she characterizes the language they used to describe the tenth cause of action there as an "unintentionally broad misstatement" that has no legal effect. This issue, in our view, is nothing but a distraction. We are not impressed by Sagi's attempt to draw Winslett into a debate over what was *261or was not meant by statements in a collateral discovery motion that is not under review in this appeal. The basis for invoking rules barring a party from taking inconsistent positions in litigation is wholly lacking. The doctrine of judicial estoppel cannot be invoked where the position first assumed was taken as a result of ignorance or mistake ( Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 182, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 96 ), and the related doctrine of equitable estoppel only applies to the intentional assertion of an inconsistent position. ( Ibid . ) Sagi makes no attempt to argue that either species of estoppel applies.

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text