In deciding whether to apply the doctrine, courts consider whether: (1) the party against whom judicial estoppel is sought has asserted a legal position that is plainly inconsistent with a prior position; (2) a court accepted the prior position; and (3) the party did not act inadvertently. Hawkins v. Meridian Resource and Exploration LLC, 2016-1545 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/6/17), 236 So.3d 610, 618, writ denied, 2018-0027 (La. 4/16/18), 240 So.3d 920. After de novo review, we do not find that Newtek's summary judgment evidence establishes it would be entitled to a directed verdict if uncontroverted at trial.
In determining whether to apply judicial estoppel, courts look to whether: (1) the party against whom judicial estoppel is sought has asserted a legal position that is plainly inconsistent with a prior position; (2) a court accepted the prior position; and (3) the party did not act inadvertently. Hawkins v. Meridian Resource and Exploration, LLC, 2016-1545 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/6/17), 236 So.3d 610, 618, writ denied, 2018-0027 (La. 4/16/18), 240 So.3d 920. Because Legacy Vulcan's argument in favor of summary judgment was one of estoppel, we will look to the factors to determine its applicability in this instance.
Id. (quoting Hawkins v. Meridian Res. & Expl. LLC, 16-1545, p. 11 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/6/17), 236 So.3d 610, 618). The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court's judgment.
In deciding whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies, we must consider whether: "(1) the party against whom judicial estoppel is sought has asserted a legal position that is plainly inconsistent with a prior position; (2) a court accepted the prior position; and (3) the party did not act inadvertently." Hawkins v. Meridian Res. &Expl. LLC, 161545, p. 11 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/6/17), 236 So.3d 610, 618, writ denied, 18-027 (La. 4/16/18), 240 So.3d 920.
To apply, courts look to whether: (1) the party against whom judicial estoppel is sought has asserted a legal position that is plainly inconsistent with a prior position; (2) a court accepted the prior position; and (3) the party did not act inadvertently. Webb v. Webb, 2018-0320 (La. 12/5/18), 263 So.3d 321, 328; Hawkins v. Meridian Resource and Exploration, LLC, 2016-1545 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/6/17), 236 So.3d 610, 618, writ denied, 2018-0027 (La. 4/16/18), 240 So.3d 920. [10] In support of his motion for summary judgment, Mr. Ledet submitted: (1) plaintiffs’ petition; (2) portions of the deposition transcript of Mr. Guilbeau; (3) portions of the deposition transcript of Mrs. Guilbeau; and (4) the Forbearance Agreement.
In deciding whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies, we must consider whether: "(1) the party against whom judicial estoppel is sought has asserted a legal position that is plainly inconsistent with a prior position; (2) a court accepted the prior position; and (3) the party did not act inadvertently." Hawkins v. Meridian Res. & Expl. LLC, 16-1545, p. 11 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/6/17), 236 So.3d 610, 618, writ denied, 18-027 (La. 4/16/18), 240 So.3d 920.