The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AMBER BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-20-481-RAW
)
SOLARA HOSPITAL MUSKOGEE, )
d/b/a CORNERSTONE HOSPITAL OF )
OKLAHOMA – MUSKOGEE, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the defendant to confirm arbitration award. Plaintiff
commenced this action as one seeking relief for employment discrimination. Defendant filed
a motion stating that the claims fell within the mandatory arbitration provision contained
within its Employee Dispute Resolution Program. Plaintiff did not object to the motion and
the court granted it (#11).
In the present motion, defendant states that the arbitrator granted defendant’s motion
for summary judgment and seeks a final judgment. Plaintiff has not filed an objection. The
decision of the arbitrator is based in large part on judicial estoppel, based on the finding that
plaintiff filed for bankruptcy but did not declare her legal claims against defendant as part
of the bankruptcy estate.
In the present motion, defendant states in passing: “On July 1, 2022, the Eastern
District Bankruptcy Court entered an order reopening the Bankruptcy Proceedings.” (#30
at ¶16). This has prompted the court to examine the record further. (This court may take
judicial notice of proceedings in the bankruptcy court. See St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v.
FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1979)). Plaintiff was terminated from employment
May 13, 2020. The Bankruptcy Petition (case no. 20-80450) was filed May 7, 2020 and
discharge was granted September 7, 2020. The present lawsuit was filed on December 22,
2020.
The arbitrator found: “She responds in her defense that she did not understand she had
an employment dispute when she signed the [Bankruptcy] Petition which is inconsistent with
her statements that she believed she had been unlawfully terminated.” (#30-5 at 2). This is
oddly phrased, in that plaintiff had not yet been terminated when she filed the Bankruptcy
Petition.
The arbitrator also found: “If the Debtor has enough information . . . prior to the
confirmation of the Bankruptcy to suggest that it may have a possible cause of action, then
that becomes a ‘known’ cause of action such that it must be disclosed.” (Id.) (ellipsis in
original). There is authority for this proposition, although the arbitrator did not cite it. See
In re Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d 197, 208 (5th Cir.1999).
Finally, the arbitrator found: “I find this Motion is not defeated by Claimant’s
contention she intends to contact the Trustee and the Bankruptcy Court to attempt to reopen
her Bankruptcy case” (#30-5 at 3). In the bankruptcy court, the present defendant opposed
plaintiff’s motion to reopen, citing Eastman v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 493 F.3d 1151,
1158-60 (10th Cir.2007). Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court has granted the motion.
2
Still, Eastman appears to stand for the proposition that such a reopening does not alter
the legal proposition above regarding judicial estoppel. See Gifford v. Lowe’s Home Center,
LLC, 2022 WL 501743, *4 (N.D.Okla.2022). Based on the present record, the motion will
be granted.
It is the order of the court that the defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award
(#30) is granted.
ORDERED THIS 26th DAY OF JULY, 2022.
______________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3