
    Karen JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-17278.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2013.
    Karen Johnson, pro se.
    Anthony Joseph Musante, Esquire, Lindsay Stevens Fitch, Esquire, Mark P. Grajski, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karen Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s application of judicial estoppel. Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that judicial estoppel barred Johnson’s employment action because Johnson was aware of but failed to disclose the existence of those claims in bankruptcy proceedings that discharged her debts. See id. at 784-85 (applying judicial estoppel where debtor knowingly failed to disclose the existence of a cause of action as an asset in a bankruptcy proceeding and the bankruptcy court relied on the nondisclosure). Johnson does not contend that the nondisclosure was the result of inadvertence or mistake, and she did not attempt to reopen bankruptcy proceedings or correct the initial filing error. See Ah Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai Dep’t of Transp., No. 10-16000, 733 F.3d 267, 2013 WL 3814916 at *4, *7 (9th Cir. July 24, 2013) (remanding for an inquiry into plaintiff-debtor’s subjective intent when filling out and signing bankruptcy schedules where plaintiff-debtor contended that the nondisclosure was the result of inadvertence or mistake and had reopened bankruptcy proceedings to correct the initial filing error).

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