to the present judicial estoppel is to the policy which prohibits litigants from manipulating their pleadings in order to obtain unjust results. This policy is evident in Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) and 41(a)(2) which restrict a party’s right to amend his pleadings or to dismiss his action without prejudice. Under these rules, a court has the discretion to deny dismissal without prejudice of either a claim or an entire action. See 3 Moore’s Federal Pr .Ed.2d 112 (1982). A second point we have considered is whether, when judicial estoppel is being employed, as here, across jurisdictional lines, the proper estoppel law is state or federal. In diversity cases, courts disagree whether the proper estoppel law is state or federal. Compare Allen v. Zurich Insurance Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1167 n. 4 (<HOLDING>) with Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d 933, 937
holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law recognizing same judicial estoppel principle under kansas law