Su v. Sotheby's Inc.
| Wei Su and Haijuan Wang |
| Sotheby's Inc. |
| Yeh-Yao Hwang |
| Sotheby's Inc. |
| Sotheby's Inc. |
| Wei Su and Haijuan Wang |
| 1:2017cv04577 |
| June 17, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Valerie E. Caproni |
| Recovery of Overpayment and Enforcement of Judgment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1345 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
293
OPINION AND JUDGMENT: For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Su and Yeh each hold an undivided 50% ownership interest in the Vessel and orders the sale of the Vessel, with the net proceeds from the sale distributed equally. Pending ap pointment of a receiver pursuant to N.Y. CPLR § 5106, the Vessel is to remain in Sotheby's possession. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Yeh and against Su and Wang. Sotheby's motion for fees and costs is DENIED without prejudice to refiling with an updated statement of fees and costs. See Letter, Dkt. 279 at 1 (noting that Sotheby's counsel has continued to participate in discussions with the parties through at least November 2022 ). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to lift the stay on the motion at Dkt. 122 and to terminate the motion. The Clerk of Court is further directed to reinstate Sotheby's Inc. as a party in this matter for the limited purpose of the adjudication of Sotheby's motion for attorneys' fees. Not later than March 15, 2024, all parties, including Sotheby's, must meet and confer for at least one hour and submit a joint letter that certifies they have done so and states:( 1) whether the parties have reached a settlement as to Sotheby's motion for fees and costs, and if not, a proposed briefing schedule for Sotheby's renewed motion; (2) the name of an agreed-upon receiver pursuant to N.Y. CPLR § 5106, o r, if no agreement is reached, the name, CV, and proposed fee proposal of each party's proposed receiver; and (3) the parties' availability for an in-person status conference, if required, preferably on a Friday at 10:00 A.M. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 2/7/2024) (tg) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
286
OPINION AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are ordered to brief the following issues: (1) Who has the right to possess the Vessel? In briefing this issue, the parties are reminded that it is the law of the case that Su is not a bona f ide purchaser of the Vessel and that Yeh owns a 50% interest in the Vessel. See Opinion, Dkt. 278 at 41. (2) Should the Court order the Vessel to be sold and divide the net proceeds of the sale between the parties? See id. Yeh's opening brief is due on February 17, 2023, and Su and Wang's response is due on April 21, 2023. Yeh's reply is due on May 12, 2023, and any sur-reply from Su and Wang is due on May 26, 2023. Per Rule 4(B) of the Undersigned's Individual P ractices, Yeh's opening brief and Su and Wang's opposition brief must not exceed twenty-five pages, and the briefs must be double-spaced. Yeh's reply, and any sur-reply from Su and Wang, must not exceed ten pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDE RED that Sotheby's fees motion remains stayed pending resolution of the above issues. Mot., Dkt. 122. SO ORDERED. ( Brief due by 2/17/2023., Reply to Response to Brief due by 5/12/2023., Responses to Brief due by 4/21/2023, Surreplies due by 5/26/2023.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 12/2/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
285
ORDER granting 284 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The conference is adjourned to 2:00 P.M. on December 2, 2022, in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, 10007. SO ORDERED. Status Conference set for 12/2/2022 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 11/30/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
283
ORDER denying without prejudice 282 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Counsel for Su and Wang are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 2(C) of the Undersigned's Individual Practices, all adjournment or extension requests must indicate whethe r all parties to the matter consent to the request. The rescheduling request is DENIED without prejudice to Su and Wang refiling the adjournment request and indicating whether Yeh objects to the rescheduling request, and if Sotheby's plans to attend the conference, whether Sotheby's objects. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 11/28/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
278
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds in favor of Yeh on his conversion claim, and his claim for a declaratory judgment is dismissed. Neither party briefed nor made arguments at trial about appropriate remedies in the event that Yeh were to prevail on his conversion claim. At this juncture, the Court declines to make findings of fact and conclusions of law about the appropriate remedies, but notes the following: As further set forth by this Order. With those considera tions in mind, the Court encourages the parties to try to settle the issues of remedy and Sotheby's attorneys' fees and costs. By no later than Friday, November 18, 2022, the parties must meet and confer and file a joint report on the p rospect of settling the remaining issues in this litigation, including whether the parties would like a referral for a settlement conference with the assigned Magistrate Judge or to the Court-annexed mediation program. If the parties do not wish to p ursue settlement, the joint report must include a proposed schedule for supplementary briefing on the issue of remedy, with Yeh to file the opening brief. Although Sotheby's is a disinterested stakeholder on liability, the parties must include w hether Sotheby's plans to file a brief on remedies, given its pending motion for fees and costs and its expertise vis-a-vis the likely market for the Vessel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/24/2022) (tg) Modified on 10/24/2022 (tg).
|
|
Filing
252
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Yeh's counsel must provide a further update by no later than Wednesday, June 22, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/12/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
251
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, due to a change in the Court's calendar, the trial will commence on Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:30 A.M. The parties must be available for trial from Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:30 A.M., and from 9:30 A.M. each day thereafter until the trial is completed. The parties must be in Courtroom 443 each day by no later than 9:15 A.M. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by no later than Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 5:00 P.M., the parties must submit new electronic device orde rs with the new trial dates. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that although the Court expects the parties to be familiar with the Courtroom technology and the remote testimony system, the Court will not require an additional technology test with DOAR in advan ce of the trial. If the parties would like to schedule a second technology test with DOAR, they are welcome to do so, although they must coordinate with Chambers in advance to ensure that the Courtroom is available. SO ORDERED.( Bench Trial set for 6/6/2022 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/2/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
250
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must be available for trial on Friday, June 3, 2022 from 9:30 A.M.; Monday, June 6, 2022 from 1:30 P.M.; and thereafter at 9:30 A.M. each day until the trial is completed. Chambers will inform the partie s via email tomorrow afternoon whether trial will commence on Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:30 A.M. or whether it will commence on Monday, June 6, 2022 at 1:30 P.M. With respect to Monday, June 6, 2022, the Court anticipates that its prior hearing wil l have concluded by 1:30 P.M., but the start time of this trial on Monday will ultimately be determined by how long that hearing lasts. The Court is confident that, assuming counsel comport themselves professionally and diligently, whether this tr ial begins on Friday, June 3, 2022 or Monday, June 6, 2022, it should be complete by the end of the day on Wednesday, June 8, 2022. Nevertheless, if Ms. Wong's clients believe that it is important that she be present for all aspects of the tr ial, even though she is not trial counsel, the Court encourages her to look into whether her flight, currently scheduled for 8:00 A.M. on Thursday, June 9, 2022, can be changed. SO ORDERED. ( Bench Trial set for 6/3/2022 at 09:30 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni., Bench Trial set for 6/6/2022 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/31/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
229
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the audiovisual tutorial and walkthrough and remote testimony test run will occur on Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:00 A.M. Counsel for Su and Wang must send a representative to the meeting. The Court reminds counsel that any entry to the courthouse must comply with Court rules regarding COVID-19, which are available here: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/COVID%20Procedures--%20Positive%20Diagnosis%20Symptoms%20or%20Exposure%20%28rev.%204.28.22%29.pdf. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/9/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
228
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by no later than Thursday, May 12, 2022, counsel for Su and Wang must inform the Court whether they have re-established contact with their client Hai Juan Wang. If counsel is unable to reestablish contact with Ms. Wang by Monday, May 24, 2022, a week before the trial commences, the Court will grant Yeh leave to file a motion for adverse inferences after the conclusion of the bench trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' audiovisual tutorial and w alkthrough will be held on Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:00 A.M. in Courtroom 443. If counsel for Su and Wang have re-established contact with Wang, then the parties must also hold a remote testimony test run from the Courtroom with the Doar represe ntative using the Zoom.gov account at that time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must meet and confer on a backup plan in the event that the Shanghai lockdown remains in place during the bench trial and Su cannot testify in person. If that p lan involves remote testimony, the parties must use a Zoom.gov account via a third-party vendor and must arrange for a test run in advance of the trial. By no later than Thursday, May 12, 2022, the parties must inform the Court whether they have r eached an agreement on a backup plan, including with respect to payment for the hosting of any remote testimony. If the parties are unable to agree, they must each lay out their respective positions and proposals and the Court will enter an order resolving the dispute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must meet and confer on all disputes regarding translation of exhibits into English. If the parties' resolution of any such disputes involves new translations, whether by Patrick F eng or otherwise, the parties must file on ECF and email Chambers new versions of the exhibits with those translations by no later than Friday, May 20, 2022. Additionally, by no later than Friday, May 20, 2022, the parties must report to the Court whether any translation-related disputes remain outstanding. If any disputes remain outstanding, the parties' joint letter must include the list of exhibits with disputed translations as well as the names of the witness or witnesses for each side who will be testifying as to the correct translation of the exhibits. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated at the conference, the Court will presume that the Shanghai High People's Court Civil Judgment (Plaintiff's Exhi bit P-4) is authentic, pending Yeh's production of a certified copy or a version that is publicly available online, via a Chinese equivalent of Westlaw or ECF/PACER. By no later than Friday, May 20, 2022, Yeh must file a certified or publicl y available version of the judgment with the Court, or if he has not obtained one by the deadline, he must report to the Court about his efforts and by when he expects to be able to obtain a certified or publicly available copy of the judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trail will commence on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:00 A.M. The parties must be in the Courtroom by Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 9:45 A.M. The trial will continue on Wednesday June 1, 2022 at 10:30 A.M., an hour later than discussed at today's conference. In the unlikely event that the trial is still proceeding on Thursday, June 2, 2022, trial will begin at 9:30 A.M. SO ORDERED. ( Bench Trial set for 5/31/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/5/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
221
CORRECTED ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Yeh will present his case at trial first. The only live claims to be tried are Yeh's cross-claim of conversion and his request for a declaratory judgment that he is the co-owner of the property at issue . See Answer, Dkt. 104 at 78. At trial, Yeh will have the burden of proving (1) that his conversion claim is timely and (2) the elements of his conversion claim. Accordingly, Yeh will first present his case-in-chief, then Su and Wang will present the ir defense, followed by Yeh's rebuttal case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Su and Wang's first motion in limine to exclude estoppel evidence "before the commission of the alleged conversion or more than three years thereafter," see Motion, Dkt. 183 at 2, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As the Court found in denying Su and Wang's motion for summary judgment, the date on which Yeh's cause of action accrued remains in dispute. If Su was a bona fide purchaser of th e vessel, then the conversion claim accrued in 2014; if Su was not a bona fide purchaser, then the conversion claim accrued in 2007. See Wei Su, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 72930. Regardless of when the claim accrued, Yeh filed his cross-claim in May 2019, m ore than three years after both 2007 and 2014. Accordingly, for Yeh's conversion claim to have been timely, Yeh must prove that the statute of limitations was tolled for some or all of the period between the date his claim accrued and the date h e filed his cross-claim. Accordingly, any estoppel evidence relating to the period between the accrual of his claim and the filing of his cross-claim is relevant pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Su and Wang's motion to e xclude such evidence is DENIED. But the Court agrees with Su and Wang that any evidence preceding or concurrent with the alleged conversion itself is not relevant to Yeh's estoppel claims. See Ross v. Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 478, 491 (2007) ("For the doctrine [of equitable estoppel] to apply, a plaintiff may not rely on the same act that forms the basis for the claim the later fraudulent misrepresentation must be for the purpose of concealing the former tort." (intern al citation omitted)). Accordingly, Su and Wangs motion to exclude evidence preceding or concurrent with the alleged conversion is GRANTED as to Yeh's estoppel claims. Of course, to the extent relevant and admissible, Yeh may introduce such ev idence with respect to the conversion claim itself. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Su and Wang's second motion in limine to exclude evidence of concealment to support Yeh's estoppel claim is DENIED. Su and Wang repeat the same arguments that w ere rejected by the Court in its opinion denying their motion to summary judgment. As discussed in detail in that opinion, "a defendant may be equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense when he is engaged in a concealment scheme to hide his involvement or identity in particular wrongdoing." Wei Su, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 730 (discussing pertinent caselaw). Accordingly, evidence of that concealment is relevant pursuant to Rule 403, and Su and Wangs motion is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/3/2022) (anc)
|
|
Filing
218
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Yeh's request that the Court order Wang to testify in person is DENIED. The Court prefers for Wang to testify remotely. If the parties can demonstrate at the Final Pretrial Conference that they have properly arr anged the logistics of Wang's remote testimony, the Court will preliminarily approve that form of testimony. If the parties are unable to demonstrate that they have made adequate arrangements for her to testifyremotely, the Court will require t hat Wang testify via deposition designations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any remote testimony from Wang must occur via a Zoom.gov account. The parties must hire a third-party vendor with access to the Zoom.gov account to host the remote testimony. Before the Final Pretrial Conference, the parties must test the system with the third-party vendor, Wang, counsel, and the translator to ensure that Wang can access the platform from China, that simultaneous (as opposed to consecutive) translation i s feasible, and that the remote testimony is otherwise adequately arranged. The Court will expect a detailed report at the Final Pretrial Conference. If the Court preliminarily approves the remote testimony at the Final Pretrial Conference, the parties will be directed to schedule a test run in the courtroom in advance of the trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/02/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
213
ORDER re: 212 Letter filed by Haijuan Wang, Wei Su, 211 Joint Preliminary Trial Report filed by Yeh-Yao Hwang, Yeo Hwang Yeh. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that due to a conflict in the Courts calendar, the final pretrial conference, currently s cheduled for May 18, 2022 at 2:00 P.M., is rescheduled to Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:30 A.M. If that date and time is not convenient for both parties, by no later than Wednesday, April 27, 2022, the parties must propose three mutually convenient dat es during the week of May 2, 2022. The final pretrial conference and trial will be held in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, located at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties m ust be prepared at the final pretrial conference to discuss their objections to the opposing partys exhibits and their answers to their opponent's objections to any proposed exhibit, as the Court expects to rule on the admissibility of the exhib its at the conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the issues to be tried at the bench trial will not include (1) any request for costs, fees, or interest for the prevailing party; and (2) whether either party should be responsible for any portion of Sotheby's costs and fees. See JPTO, Dkt. 209 at 34. If needed, the Court will order the parties to file additional briefing on those issues once the bench trial has concluded. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Yeh's deadline to file proposed findi ngs of fact and conclusions of law is extended nunc pro tunc to Monday, May 2, 2022. It appears that Yeh's counsel misunderstood Rule 8 of the Undersigneds Individual Practices in Civil Cases. Pursuant to Rule 8(A)(vii), parties must include &qu ot;[a]ny stipulations or statements of fact or law to which all parties agree." The parties included such statements in their JPTO. See JPTO, Dkt. 209 at 47. But pursuant to Rule 8(C), "[e]ach party shall file on ECF and serve with the join t pretrial order:... proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law." Additional detail about the Court's requirements is found in that Rule. The Court"s intention under Rule 8(C) is for each party to lay out what it believes the Cou rt should enter as findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence as it exists prior to the commencement of the bench trial. Despite Yeh's contentions to the contrary, see Letter, Dkt. 210, there is no requirement that a party 9;s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law be previously disclosed to opposing counsel or incorporated into the JPTO. See also Order, Dkt. 199 (requiring the parties to submit both proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as a JPTO). Accordingly, Yeh's request (Dkt. 210) that the Court strike Su and Wang's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in fairness to the parties, Su and Wang are welcome to file revised proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by no later than Monday, May 2, 2022. Were Su and Wang to revise their filing, the Court encourages counsel to "include citations to the proffered evidence." See Rule 8(C)(ii) of the Unders igned's Individual Practices in Civil Cases. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than Wednesday, April 27, 2022, Yeh must refile his exhibits on ECF and provide a new physical copy of the exhibits to Chambers. The corrected exhibits must use the same numbering as the list of exhibits in the joint pretrial order and in the submitted exhibit list. Several of the exhibits appear out of order. For example, in the JPTO and the exhibit list, P-54 is listed as "9/3/2014 Tao Wang (Sotheby&# 039;s) email with Wang Hai Juan." See JPTO, Dkt. 209 at 14. But in the electronic and physical versions of the exhibits, P-54 is the full transcript of the deposition of Hai Juan Wang. See Dep. Tr., Dkt. 209- 54. Additionally, by no later than W ednesday, April 27, 2022, Yeh must email a copy of his exhibit list to Chambers, as the Court only has a hard copy of the list that was provided to Chambers with the physical copies of the exhibits. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than Wednesd ay, April 27, 2022, Su and Wang must email Chambers an electronic copy of their one exhibit. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than Wednesday April 27, 2022, the parties must file a joint letter with additional information about Hai Juan Wang� 39;s anticipated testimony. The parties must explain why Ms. Wang is unable to testify in person. Additionally, the parties must state whether they prefer for her to testify remotely or by deposition designation. If the parties prefer that Ms. Wang t estify remotely, the parties must provide additional information about interpretation. The Court understands that the parties have arranged for Patrick Feng to interpret for the witnesses that require interpretation at the trial. See Letters, Dkt. 21 1, 212. Assuming Mr. Feng will be present in the Courtroom and given the Courts preference for simultaneous translation, the parties must provide details about the mechanics of how Mr. Feng will translate for Ms. Wang while ensuring minimal disruptio n to the proceedings. The Court reminds the parties that they are responsible for arranging and paying for any equipment Mr. Feng may need to facilitate his interpretation at the trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties would like to bring el ectronic devices to the final pretrial conference or to the bench trial, they must follow the procedures in Rule 9 of the Undersigned's Individual Practices in Civil Cases. SO ORDERED. (Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/5/2022 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 4/21/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
201
ORDER granting 200 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The Final Pretrial Conference, currently scheduled for Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:00 P.M., is hereby adjourned to Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 2:00 P.M. The bench tri al, currently scheduled to commence on Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:00 A.M., is adjourned to Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:00 A.M. The Court reminds the parties that their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as their joint pre-trial order are due no later than Friday, March 4, 2022. For additional information about those requirements, the parties should consult the Court's order at docket entry 199. The Court encourages counsel to act courteously and professionally moving forward. SO ORDERED. Bench Trial set for 5/31/2022 at 10:00 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/18/2022 at 02:00 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 1/26/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
199
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Yeh will present his case at trial first. The only live claims to be tried are Yeh's cross-claim of conversion and his request for a declaratory judgment that he is the co-owner of the property at issue. See Answer, Dkt. 104 at 7-8. At trial, Yeh will have the burden of proving (1) that his conversion claim is timely and (2) the elements of his conversion claim. Accordingly, Yeh will first present his case-in-chief, then Su and Wang will present the ir defense, followed by Yeh's rebuttal case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Su and Wang's first motion in limine to exclude estoppel evidence "before the commission of the alleged conversion or more than three years thereafter," see Motion, Dkt. 183 at 2, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As the Court found in denying Su and Wang's motion for summary judgment, the date on which Yeh's cause of action accrued remains in dispute. If Su was a bona fide purchaser o f the vessel, then the conversion claim accrued in 2007; if Su was not a bona fide purchaser, then the conversion claim accrued in 2014. See Wei Su, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 729-30. Regardless of when the claim accrued, Yeh filed his cross-claim in May 2019, more than three years after both 2007 and 2014.Accordingly, for Yehs conversion claim to have been timely, Yeh must prove that the statute of limitations was tolled for some or all of the period between the date his claim accrued and the date he filed his cross-claim. Accordingly, any estoppel evidence relating to the period between the accrual of his claim and the filing of his cross-claim is relevant pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Su and Wangs motion to exclu de such evidence is DENIED.But the Court agrees with Su and Wang that any evidence preceding or concurrent with the alleged conversion itself is not relevant to Yehs estoppel claims. See Ross v. Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 478, 491 (2007) (Fo r the doctrine [of equitable estoppel] to apply, a plaintiff may not rely on the same act that forms the basis for the claim the later fraudulent misrepresentation must be for the purpose of concealing the former tort. (internal citation omitted)). Accordingly, Su and Wangs motion to exclude evidence preceding or concurrentwith the alleged conversion is GRANTED as to Yehs estoppel claims. Of course, to the extent relevant and admissible, Yeh may introduce such evidence with respect to the con version claimitself. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Su and Wang's second motion in limine to exclude evidence of concealment to support Yeh's estoppel claim is DENIED. Su and Wang repeat the same arguments that were rejected by the Court in i ts opinion denying their motion to summary judgment. As discussed in detail in that opinion, "a defendant may be equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense when he is engaged in a concealment scheme to hide his involve ment or identity in particular wrongdoing." Wei Su, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 730 (discussing pertinent case law). Accordingly, evidence of that concealment is relevant pursuant to Rule 403, and Su and Wang's motion is denied. IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that a bench trial in this matter will commence on Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:00 A.M. The final pretrial conference is scheduled for Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:00 P.M. The trial and final pretrial conference will be held in Courtroom 44 3 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, located at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a proposed Joint Pretrial Order ("JPTO") and each party's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are due no later than Friday, March 4, 2022. The Court reminds the parties that the proposed JPTO must comply with Rule 8 of the Undersigned's Individual Practices in Civil Cases. In addition to complying with that Rule, the parties must address the following topics: As further set forth by this Order. SO ORDERED. ( Proposed Pretrial Order due by 3/4/2022., Bench Trial set for 5/9/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni., Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/28/2022 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 1/4/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
196
OPINION AND ORDER re: 185 FIRST MOTION to Disqualify Counsel . filed by Yeh-Yao Hwang, Yeo Hwang Yeh. For the reasons discussed above, Yeh's motion to disqualify Sus counsel is DENIED. By no later than Friday, September 3, 2021 , the parties must file a joint letter updating the Court on the location and vaccination status of all counsel and trial witnesses. They must also meet and confer and propose three mutually convenient dates for trial in this matter. All of the da tes must be earlier than March 31, 2022. The Court will use that information to set the pretrial and trial schedule. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry 185. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/11/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
189
ORDER: A telephonic settlement conference in this matter is scheduled for Monday, January 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties are directed to call Judge Parker's court conference line at the scheduled time. Please dial (866) 434-5269, Access code: 4858267. Clients must participate in this conference. Corporate parties must send the person with decision making authority to settle the matter to the conference. The parties are instructed to complete the Se ttlement Conference Summary Report and prepare pre-conference submissions in accordance with the Judge Parker's Individual Rules of Practice. Pre-conference submissions must be received by the Court no later than January 18, 2021 by 5:00 p.m. ( Telephone Conference set for 1/25/2021 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 11/9/2020) (mro)
|
|
Filing
188
ORDER: WHEREAS on November 6, 2020, the parties appeared for a conference; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons stated at the conference, the Court stays all deadlines, including any further briefing on Su and Wang's proposed motions in lim ine, until the resolution of Yeh's motion to disqualify. The Court reminds the parties that Su and Wang's response in opposition to the motion to disqualify is due no later than Friday, November 13, 2020 and that any reply in support of the motion is due no later than Friday, November 20, 2020. The Court further reminds the parties about their upcoming telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Parker, currently scheduled for November 9, 2020. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 185 FIRST MOTION to Disqualify Counsel: Responses due by 11/13/2020. Replies due by 11/20/2020.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 11/6/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
187
ORDER: WHEREAS the parties are scheduled to appear for a telephone conference on Friday, November 6, 2020, at 2:00 P.M.; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, the telephone conference will be held on Friday, Novemb er 6, 2020, at 11:30 A.M. All parties and any interested members of the public must attend by dialing 1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171, and the security code 4577. All attendees are advised to mute their phones when not speaking and to self-identify each time they speak. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 11/6/2020 at 11:30 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/30/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
181
ORDER SCHEDULING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: This case has been referred to me for settlement purposes. (Doc. No. 180.) A telephone conference will be held on Monday, November 9, 2020 at 12:45 p.m. in advance of a settlement conference. Counse l for the parties are directed to call Judge Parker's Chambers court conference line at the scheduled time. Please dial (866) 434-5269, Access code: 4858267. ( Telephone Conference set for 11/9/2020 at 12:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 10/19/2020) (mro)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must meet and confer to discuss how they would like the bench trial to proceed, including the use of electronic platforms for witness testimony. A joint proposal from the parties is due no later than Frida y, October 23, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that any party that wishes to make motion(s) in limine must file a letter of no more than three pages explaining the substance of such desired motion(s), by no later than Friday, October 23, 2020. If an y party files a letter indicating a desire to make motions in limine, all other parties must file a letter of no more than three pages, stating whether, and if so why, the party would oppose the proposed motions in limine, by no later than Friday, Oc tober 30, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone conference will be held on Friday, November 6, 2020, at 2:00 P.M., to discuss any proposed motions in limine, to set a briefingscheduling on such motions if one is needed, to set a schedule for t he filing of a joint pretrial order, proposed findings of fact, and proposed conclusions of law, and to set a final pretrial conference and tentative trial date. All parties and any interested members of the public must attend by dialing 1-888-363-47 49, using the access code 3121171, and the security code 4577. All attendees are advised to mute their phones when not speaking and to self-identify each time they speak. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any Motion to Disqualify is due no later than Friday , October 30, 2020. Any response in opposition to the Motion is due no later than Friday, November 13, 2020. Any reply in support of the Motion is due no later than Friday, November 20, 2020. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 10/30/2020., Responses due by 11/13/2020, Replies due by 11/20/2020., Telephone Conference set for 11/6/2020 at 02:00 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/16/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
176
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: 156 FIRST MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Complaint, the Counterclaim and the Cross-Claim filed by Haijuan Wang, Wei Su. For the reasons discussed above, Su's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Th e Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 156. The parties are hereby ordered to appear at a telephone conference on Friday, October 9, 2020, at 2:00 P.M. to discuss scheduling a trial. All parties and any interested members of the public must attend by dialing 1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171, and the security code 4577. All attendees are advised to mute their phones when not speaking and to self-identify each time they speak. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 10/9/2020 at 02:00 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/29/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER: terminating 122 Motion for Attorney Fees. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sotheby's pending motion for fees and costs is STAYED pending the outcome of Su/Wang's motion for summary judgment or other resolution of the merits of Su/Wang's and Yeh's competing claims in this matter. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to STAY the pending motion at docket entry 122. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 2/14/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
149
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 108 FIRST MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Haijuan Wang, Wei Su, 114 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for slander of title filed by Yeh-Yao Hwang. For t he reasons discussed above, Yeh's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 108 and 114. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/4/2019) (mro)
|
|
Filing
144
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: 140 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Compel Wei Su and Hai Juan Wang to appear for in-person pre-trial deposition addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Pedro Medina, Jr. dated August 12, 2019. FIRST LETTER MOTION fo r Discovery addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Pedro Medina, Jr. dated August 12, 2019. filed by Yeh-Yao Hwang, Yeo Hwang Yeh. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order is DENIED, and Yeh's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. In sum, the Court holds that, on balance, Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing good cause for a protective order; their motion is, therefore, DENIED. The Court, however, is not insensitive to Plaintiffs� 39; inconvenience and potential family and health considerations. For that reason, the parties are directed to meet and confer, in good faith, as to alternative locations within the United States that may be more amenable to Plaintiffs' needs, s uch as California or Hawaii, should Plaintiffs agree to bear Yeh's costs for conducting any such depositions outside of New York. Yeh's motion to compel depositions is therefore GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that such depositions must occu r within the jurisdiction of the United States. No later than September 6, 2019, Plaintiffs and Yeh must file a joint letter with the Court, after the required meet-and-confer, updating the Court on their resolution or respective positions as to the time and place of Plaintiffs' depositions. The joint letter must also indicate whether the current deadline of September 30, 2019, for the completion of fact discovery remains feasible; if not, the parties must propose a revised discovery schedule for the Court's approval. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate any pending motions at docket entries 140 and 142. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/28/2019) (ama)
|
|
Filing
48
OPINION AND ORDER. To summarize the Court's rulings: 1. Sotheby's motion for alternative service (Dkt. 40) is GRANTED IN PART. No later than November 16, 2018, Sotheby's must file proof that it has complied with this order. Specificall y, Sotheby's must send copies of the third-party complaint (with translation), summons (with translation), and this opinion to (a) all email addresses and fax numbers that Sotheby's has reason to believe are associated with The Correct Law Office or Yeh and (b) via mail (return receipt requested) to The Correct Law Office and to all postal addresses that Sotheby's has reason to believe are associated with Yeh. Additionally, Sotheby's must publish notice of this action in two newspapers of general circulation in Taiwan, consistent with the terms of this order, commencing not later than October 19, 2018. 2. Yeh is ORDERED to respond to Sotheby's motion for discharge and for attorneys' fees no later than November 15, 2018. 3. Sotheby's motion for discharge (Dkt. 14) is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending its additional efforts to effect service. 4. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to Sotheby's counterclaim for breach of contract no later t han October 31, 2018. 5. Plaintiffs, Yeh, and Sotheby's are ORDERED to appear for a conference with this Court on December 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse to set a schedule for discovery. No later than November 29, 2018, the parties must submit a joint pre-conference letter and a joint proposed Civil Case Management Plan. SO ORDERED. Wei Su answer due 10/31/2018; Haijuan Wang answer due 10/31/2018. (Responses due by 11/15/2018). (Status Conference set for 12/7/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/3/2018) (rjm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
