K&S Diversified Invs., Inc., 308 B.R. 448, 460 (B.A.P 9th Cir. 2004), aff’d by unpublished opinion, 160 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2005)). The court thus reversed the summary judgment dismissal against the bankruptcy trustee. Id. The court, however, affirmed the trial court’s application of judicial estoppel to the debtors and barred them “from receiving any benefit from the suit in the event of a recovery.” Id. ¶12 Federal bankruptcy courts have taken the same approach, holding that bankruptcy debtors and trustees have separate identities for purposes of judicial estoppel. E.g., Cheng, 308 B.R. at 455, 457 n.4 (“[A] trustee ordinarily may not be judicially estopped on account of an earlier inconsistent position taken by the debtor.”); In re Lopez, 283 B.R. 22, 27 (B.A.P 9th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>); accord Wood v. Household Fin. Corp., 341 B.R.
holding that reopening a closed case to file a reaffirmation agreement is not permitted by the bankruptcy code holding that a corporate chapter 7 debt ors malpractice claim against its bankruptcy attorney was related to its bankruptcy case holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court holding that a bankruptcy appellate panel abuses its discretion by preventing a bankruptcy trustee from reopening a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding when reopening the case would potentially benefit creditors holding that reopening closed case was necessary for bankruptcy court jurisdiction