In understanding the [[Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel]], it is helpful to distinguish it from other forms of [[estoppel]]. "The distinction between [[collateral estoppel]] and judicial estoppel is fairly easy to make; accordingly, courts seldom confuse these two doctrines. Collateral estoppel bars a party from relitigating an issue of ultimate fact that a court already has adjudicated. It deals with the finality of judgment on factual matters that were fully considered and decided. Judicial estoppel, on the other hand, prevents inconsistent positions whether or not they have been the subject of a final judgment. . . . Collateral estoppel deprives a party of the right to relitigate an issue. The rationale is to conserve judicial resources by preventing repetitive litigation. In contrast, judicial estoppel deprives a party only of the right to assert a particular position. . . . Judicial estoppel is designed to maintain the purity and integrity of the judicial process by preventing inconsistent positions from being asserted." (Comment, Precluding Inconsistent Statements: The Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel (1986) 80 Nw. U. L.Rev. 1244, 1247-1248, fns. omitted (hereafter Precluding Inconsistent Statements); [\*183] accord, Teledyne Industries, [\***21] Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (6th Cir. 1990) 911 F.2d 1214, 1219-1220.) (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 182-183 \[70 Cal.Rptr.2d 96].)