
    Yvonne A’Rae LAISURE-RADKE, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas Radke, deceased; Estate of Douglas Radke, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, and Pharmaceutical Resources, Inc.; Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Yvonne A’Rae Laisure-Radke, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas Radke, deceased; Estate of Douglas Radke, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Pharmaceutical Resources, Inc.; Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 07-35443, 07-35495.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Withdrawn from Submission Nov. 20, 2008.
    Resubmitted and Filed Feb. 20, 2009.
    Karen Kathryn Koehler, Esquire, Strit-matter Kessler Whelan Withey & Coluccio, Seattle, WA, Fred H. Shepherd, Esquire, Arnold Anderson Vickery, Esquire, Paul F. Waldner, Esquire, Vickery Waldner & Mallia, LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    John R. Ipsaro, Esquire, Jeffrey R. Schaefer, Esquire, Mary Lynn Tate, Esquire, Joseph Thomas, Esquire, Ulmer & Berne, Cincinnati, OH, Jeffrey Royal Johnson, Carin A. Marney, Esquire, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: B. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Y’vonne A’Rae Laisure-Radke appeals the district court’s order granting Pharmaceutical Resources, Inc.’s, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss. The district court held that judicial estoppel barred Laisure-Radke from asserting her claims against Defendants. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s application of judicial estoppel for an abuse of discretion. Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Because Laisure-Radke failed to disclose the existence of her claims against Defendants in her bankruptcy petition and obtained a discharge of her debts based on this failure to disclose, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that judicial estoppel barred Lai-sure-Radke’s claims. See id. at 784-85. That Laisure-Radke later moved to reopen her bankruptcy proceedings does not excuse her earlier failure to disclose; judicial estoppel ensures that debtors make a “full and honest disclosure” of their assets in the original bankruptcy proceeding. See id. at 785 (internal quotation omitted).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Laisure-Radke’s claims, we do not reach the issues raised in Defendants’ cross-appeal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     