Su v. Sotheby's Inc.

Background

The court had previously denied Wei Su and Hai Juan Wang’s motion for summary judgment. The parties then disagreed about the order in which they would present evidence at the planned bench trial. The only claims still scheduled for trial were Yeh Yao Hwang’s cross-claim for conversion and his request for a declaration that he was a co-owner of the property at issue.

The court ordered Yeh to present his case first. He would have to prove both that his conversion claim was filed on time and that the claim’s elements were satisfied. Su and Wang would then present their defense, followed by Yeh’s rebuttal.

First motion in limine

Su and Wang moved to exclude estoppel evidence concerning events occurring before the alleged conversion or more than three years afterward. A motion in limine is a request to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be introduced.

The court explained that the date when Yeh’s conversion claim accrued remained disputed. If Su was a bona fide purchaser of the vessel, the claim accrued in 2007; if Su was not a bona fide purchaser, it accrued in 2014. Because Yeh filed his cross-claim in May 2019, he needed to prove that the statute of limitations—the deadline for filing the claim—was extended for some or all of the period between accrual and filing. The court therefore denied the request to exclude evidence about that period, concluding that the evidence could be relevant under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The court granted the request as to evidence before or occurring at the same time as the alleged conversion when offered to support Yeh’s estoppel arguments. It stated that the conduct forming the alleged conversion could not itself support equitable estoppel, which can prevent a party from relying on a filing deadline in certain circumstances. The court clarified that such evidence could still be introduced if it was relevant and admissible to the conversion claim itself. Accordingly, the first motion in limine was granted in part and denied in part.

Second motion in limine

Su and Wang also moved to exclude evidence of concealment offered to support Yeh’s estoppel claim. The court denied that motion. It relied on its earlier summary-judgment ruling and stated that evidence of a concealment scheme intended to hide involvement or identity in the alleged wrongdoing could be relevant under Rule 403.

Other scheduling orders and disposition

The court scheduled the bench trial to begin on May 9, 2022, and scheduled the final pretrial conference for April 28, 2022. It required the parties to submit a proposed joint pretrial order and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 4, 2022, including information about possible remote testimony, interpreters, and participants’ vaccination status.

Judge Valerie Caproni did not decide the merits of the conversion or co-ownership claims in this order. She set the trial procedures, granted in part and denied in part the first motion in limine, and denied the second motion in limine.