Su v. Sotheby's Inc.

Background

The court had previously denied Su and Wang’s motion for summary judgment. The parties then disagreed about the order of proof for the upcoming bench trial. Su and Wang proposed two motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented. Yeh opposed both motions.

The court stated that the only live claims were Yeh Yao Hwang’s cross-claim for conversion and his request for a declaratory judgment that he was a co-owner of the property at issue. The court ordered Yeh to present his case first, followed by Su and Wang’s defense and then Yeh’s rebuttal. Yeh bore the burden of proving both that his conversion claim was timely and that he could establish the elements of conversion.

First motion in limine

Su and Wang sought to exclude estoppel evidence concerning the period before the alleged conversion or more than three years afterward. The court granted this motion in part and denied it in part.

The court explained that the date Yeh’s conversion claim accrued remained disputed. If Su was a bona fide purchaser, meaning a purchaser who acquired the property without the relevant notice of another claim, the claim accrued in 2014. If Su was not a bona fide purchaser, the claim accrued in 2007. Because Yeh filed his cross-claim in May 2019, it was filed more than three years after either possible accrual date. Yeh therefore needed to prove that the statute of limitations was paused for some or all of the time between accrual and filing. The court denied the request to exclude evidence concerning that period because the evidence could be relevant under the evidence rules.

The court granted the request as to evidence preceding or concurrent with the alleged conversion when offered to support Yeh’s equitable-estoppel theory. It reasoned that the same act forming the basis of the conversion claim could not also serve as the later concealment or misrepresentation needed for equitable estoppel. The court clarified that such evidence could still be introduced, if relevant and admissible, for the conversion claim itself.

Second motion in limine

The court denied Su and Wang’s second motion, which sought to exclude evidence of concealment supporting Yeh’s estoppel claim. The court had rejected the same arguments in its earlier summary-judgment opinion. It held that evidence of a concealment scheme intended to hide involvement or identity in the alleged wrongdoing could be relevant to whether a party was prevented from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense.

Disposition

The court ordered Yeh to present his case first. It granted in part and denied in part Su and Wang’s first motion in limine, and denied their second motion in limine. The order addressed trial presentation and evidence; it did not decide the ultimate merits of Yeh’s conversion or co-ownership claims.