USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-1993
EUGENE DESJARDINS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
VAN BUREN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer,* Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Paul F. Macri

with whom Berman & Simmons,

P.A. was on brief

_____________
_______________________
appellant.
June A. Jackson with whom Paul W. Chaiken and Rudman & Winch
________________
________________
______________
were on brief for appellee.
____________________
October 12, 1994
____________________

____________________

*Chief Judge Stephen Breyer heard oral argument in this matter,

did not participate in the drafting or the issuance of the pane
opinion.
The remaining two panelists therefore issue this opin
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
46(d).

BOUDIN,

Circuit Judge.
______________

In 1989,

Eugene

Desjardins

brought suit against Van Buren Community Hospital, Inc. ("the

Hospital"), a Maine Corporation, for federal and state claims
arising from Desjardins' discharge from the Hospital in 1988.
After

trial, the

under

Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.

seq., two
____
under

Maine statutes,

Maine law.

damages,

jury found

that the

and a

Hospital was

pair of common-law

Desjardins was awarded

$5,000 in "front

pay," and

liable
794 et
__
counts

almost $18,000 in

substantial attorney's

fees.
The
course

Hospital
of

appealed to

the appeal,

financial reasons.
("the

the

court

Hospital

Further,

District"), a

this

but during

the

ceased operation

for

the Van Buren Hospital District

municipal

entity

authorized by

Maine

statute to provide medical services in the Town of Van Buren,

Maine,

filed for

separate legal
building

and

bankruptcy

bankruptcy.

The District,

entity with taxation powers,

equipment

pleadings,

used
the

by

the

technically a
owned the land,

Hospital.

District styled

In

itself

the

as "Van

Buren Hospital District, d/b/a Van Buren Community Hospital."

The

District's

dismissed
District

by the

chapter

11

petition

bankruptcy court

was a government entity not

protection.

However, before

the

on the

was

eventually

ground that

the

entitled to chapter 11
dismissal, the

Hospital

-2-2-

secured

a temporary stay of its own appeal in the Desjardins

case

on

the

bankruptcy;
for

ground

that

the

in fact, it was

bankruptcy.

Hospital

had

filed

the District that

for

had so filed

Ultimately, the stay was lifted and in July

1992, this court upheld judgment in favor of Desjardins.

Since

the

Hospital

virtually without assets,

took

the

position

Desjardins requested a

hearing before the magistrate judge.

December 1992.
assigned

the Hospital's

Desjardins'

responsible

it

was

disclosure

The hearing was held in

After hearing testimony, the magistrate judge

accounts receivable to
refused

that

for

checking-account

balance

Desjardins, but the

request

to hold

the Hospital's

district court upheld the

debt

its

magistrate judge

the
to

and

District legally
Desjardins.

The

magistrate judge and also declined

to approve further discovery.

Desjardins now appeals to this

court.
On

appeal,

Desjardins

argues

that

several different

doctrines allow him to hold the District liable for the debts
of

the

Hospital.

The

attempt on two grounds:

magistrate judge

the

separately
entity.
for

claims

such an

that the District was not a party to

the disclosure proceeding and,

action

rejected

against

further, that in the original

the

asserted against the

Hospital
District, a

had

not

been

distinct legal

These threshold objections are not without force but

various reasons we prefer

-3-3-

to track the district court's

disposition,

which

addresses

the

merits

of

Desjardins'

attempts to impute liability to the District.

Desjardins' first

claim on appeal is

that the doctrine

of judicial estoppel prevented the District from denying that

it and the Hospital were one and the same.
may apply

to bar a

litigant from
as

engaging in

a means

of

"intentional

self-contradiction

advantage . . . ."

Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. General Cinema

______________________
_______________

Corp.,
_____

. .

Judicial estoppel

obtaining unfair

834 F.2d 208, 212 (1st Cir. 1987) (quoting Scarano v.

_______

Central R. Co., 203 F.2d

_______________
Desjardins

says that

the

510, 513 (3rd

Cir. 1953)).

Here,

Hospital and

District have

been

engaged in such self-contradiction in three respects:

at the

outset, the Hospital asserted a governmental immunity defense

applicable only to the

District; the District's petition for

bankruptcy styled the District

Hospital"

and

listed

as "d/b/a Van Buren Community

Desjardins

as a

creditor;

and

the

Hospital requested and obtained a stay of its appeal from the

Desjardins
proceedings.

verdict

during

the

District's

bankruptcy

Since the district court rejected this judicial estoppel

claim,

the

Hospital argues

that

the

affirmed because not clearly erroneous.

that

judicial estoppel

presents a

should be reviewed de novo.

__ ____
not

rejection should

be

Desjardins responds

matter of

the law

that

In reality, judicial estoppel is

extrinsically a matter of

fact or law;

the issues that

-4-4-

arise

may turn out to be ones

something

in between,

standard

to a known set

make no difference
estoppel issue

e.g.,
____

of raw fact, abstract law, or

the application

of facts.

because we would

even if

of a

general

Here, fine distinctions

affirm on the

every aspect of

judicial

it were open

to de
__

novo review.
____
The phrases "self-contradiction" and
used

in Patriot Cinemas
_______________

many situations,

"unfair advantage"

are not self-executing.

especially

at the

outset

of

There are
litigation,

where

a party

is free

later withdraws--or

to assert a

even to assert, in

inconsistent positions of its

Of

position from

which it

the alternative, two

potential claims or

defenses.

course, what is legitimate pleading in one context may be

negligent or even fraudulent in

another.

Lawyers and judges

are not beyond making the necessary distinctions.

Here, the

relationship

District is surely one

susceptible

the

Hospital

Hospital

We

do not see

the

any wrongful self-

alone unfair advantage, in

initially

and

open to different interpretations and

to argument.

contradiction, let

between the

asserted

the fact that

governmental

immunity

defense that was thereafter

abandoned or that the District's

bankruptcy petition

d/b/a reference to

and

mentioned

used a

Desjardins as

creditor,

the Hospital

even though

the

District now presumably rejects both these implications.

-5-5-

One could be more critical of the Hospital's request for

a

stay

of

its

own

appeal

because

of

the

District's

bankruptcy.

The

request not

only implied

an identity

entities but it also led a court to take action,

of

namely, the

grant of a temporary stay.

But again, there is no indication

of

by

deliberate

dishonesty

temporary

stay

prejudice

to judicial

opposing

been

party.

shown

Cf.
___

the
to

have

proceedings

has

any

serious

position of

355,

the

the

Applied
_______

358-59 (1st

Cir.

We do not think this is a proper case for estoppel.

"pierce

assets.
land,

caused

or the

F.2d

Desjardins's next argument is

to

nor

Wang Laboratories, Inc. v.

_________________________

Computer Sciences, Inc., 958

_________________________
1992).

Hospital

the

corporate

Desjardins

that he should be allowed

veil" to

brought out that the

building and equipment of the

trustees

reach

of the District

of

one

Hospital was the "operating

District

trustee

of

directors of

and--based on the
the

District--the

entity" and the meetings

trustees were only a "formality."

have to say", said

District owned the

automatically became

current

District's

Hospital; that the five

the Hospital (although not the only ones);

testimony

the

of the

"I guess I would

the testifying trustee, "that we

kind of

wear two hats."

This testimony shows a considerable overlap
two entities but hardly
automatically

what

between the

an identity so complete as
are

formally

-6-6-

two

to merge

different

legal

organizations.
other
and

That

one entity holds

is hardly unique, and

a director

wears

property used by

obviously one who

"two hats."

the

is a trustee

The reference

to

the

trustees' meetings as a "formality" might be sinister in some

contexts but here there is
that an
and

operating hospital

that meetings

routine.

the titleholding

important, Maine

than overlap for

another.

courts "pierce

corporate form
v. Crepeau, 593
_______
also disregard
treatment would

law

an adversary of

the veil and reach

its

of

should be the

busy organization
District should

be

"Formality" is not quite the same as "subterfuge."

Equally

that

nothing surprising in the thought

requires something
one corporation to

Maine's highest court

the

corporate

is used fraudulently or

veil only
illegally."

A.2d 653, 655 (Me. 1991).

separate corporate identities
"justify

a wrong",

more
pierce

has said
if

the

LaBelle
_______

Maine courts may

where separate

Bonnar-Vawter, Inc.
___________________

v.

Johnson, 173 A.2d 141 (Me. 1961), or would defeat legislative

_______
policy or

statutory aims.

See Brennan v. Saco Construction,

___ _______
__________________

Inc.,
____

381 A.2d 656, 662 (Me. 1978).

But it is difficult to

see a "wrong" here, and no legislation is at issue.

Desjardins is in substance seeking to impose liabilities
of one entity
have

close

on a closely related entity, the

connections,

directors, but is in

including

number

other respects distinct.

Lehigh Footwear, Inc.,

_____________________

516 A.2d 558

two of which
of

In

common

Curtis v.
______

(Me. 1986), the

former

-7-7-

employees of

a bankrupt

corporation for

subsidiary company sued

severance pay.

Even though

the parent

the subsidiary

parent shared several common directors, and corporate parents

can

usually

subsidiaries,

determine
the

Maine

the

ultimate

court held

direction
that

would not be disregarded in the absence

of

their

corporate entity

of bad faith.

There

is no showing of bad faith here.

Finally,

Desjardins

protested

treatment of possible further

the

discovery.

district

court's

Desjardins reads a

comment of

the district judge as

precluding Desjardins from

engaging in any further discovery.

The Hospital replies that

a law permits the debtor to be summoned for

hearing after six
last

months, six months

hearing, and

Hospital again.

Desjardins is

a new disclosure

have passed since

now free

to subpoena

The parties appear to agree

can now summon and

the
the

that Desjardins

interrogate the Hospital again as

to its

assets.
Even

with the

aid of

the district court

decision and

three briefs, we are not able to tell what exactly remains of

the

dispute between

the

parties as

to further

discovery.

Desjardins does say that he used the Maine procedures for the
post-judgment investigation,

as permitted by Fed

69,

use

but

might now

district judge
But instead

like to

Federal Rule

did express some disagreement

of pursuing this issue,

R. Civ. P.
methods; the

on this point.

Desjardins' reply brief

-8-8-

refers

instead

to

the

possibility

of

seeking

discovery

against nonparties, as well as attachment, trustee process or

other liens.
We

think that we do not have an adequately framed issue

before us on
impose

the discovery question.

liability on

the

Desjardins' effort to

District or

obtain its

utilize its taxing authority has now been resolved.

that further discovery addressed to
the

assets or
We think

this issue is barred

____

on

ground that the matter has already been adjudicated.

As

to Desjardins' use
purpose,

we make

of any
no

type of discovery

pronouncements and

for any

will address

issues if and when presented by a specific controversy.

Affirmed.
________

-9-9-

other
such