<p><b>RICHARD K. GOTTLIEB v. MICHAEL KEST</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <h1>Filed 7/10/06</h1> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION ONE</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p>RICHARD K. GOTTLIEB,</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant,</p> <br /> <p> v.</p> <br /> <p>MICHAEL KEST, Individually and as Trustee, etc.,</p> <br /> <p> Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p> B178729</p> <br /> <p> (Los Angeles County</p> <br /> <p> Super. Ct. No. BC246040)</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p> APPEAL from judgments of the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Superior Court of Los Angeles County</a>, Susan Bryant-Deason, Judge. Reversed.</p> <br /> <p> Tesser & Ruttenberg and Brian M. Grossman for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.</p> <br /> <p> Raymond L. Asher for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.</p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>___________________________________________</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b>Story Continue from Part I ………..</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p>Thus, a litigant seeking to invoke <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">judicial estoppel</a> typically is not required to make a showing of privity or detrimental reliance. (See <i>Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp</i>. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015–1016; <i>Conrad v. Bank of America</i> (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 133, 151, overruled on another point in <i>Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp.</i> (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 85, 92–94; <i>Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc</i>. (5th Cir. 2005) 412 F.3d 598, 600; <i>Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc</i>. (11th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1282, 1286, followed in <i>Transamerica v. Institute of London Underwriters</i> (11th Cir. 2005) 430 F.3d 1326, 1335; <i>Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co</i>. (3d Cir. 1996) 81 F.3d 355, 358–361 (<i>Ryan Operations</i>); <i>Autos, Inc. v. Gowin</i> (D.Kan. 2005) 330 B.R. 788, 794 & fn. 2, motion to amend judg. den. (D.Kan. 2005) 332 B.R. 628.)</p> <br /> <p> â€