Su v. Sotheby's Inc.

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)

Case 1:17-cv-04577-VEC Document 199 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 5
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 01/04/2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
WEI SU and HAI JUAN WANG,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-against:
:
SOTHEBY’S, INC.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- :
SOTHEBY’S, INC.,
:
:
Counter-Claimant,
:
:
-against:
:
WEI SU, HAI JUAN WANG, and YEH YAO HWANG
:
:
Counterclaim-Defendants,
:
17-CV-4577 (VEC)
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- :
ORDER
YEH YAO HWANG,
:
:
Cross-Claimant,
:
:
-against:
:
WEI SU and HAI JUAN WANG,
:
:
Cross-Defendants,
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- :
WEI SU and HAI JUAN WANG,
:
:
Cross-Claimants,
:
:
-against:
:
YEH YAO HWANG,
:
:
Cross-Defendant,
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

Case 1:17-cv-04577-VEC Document 199 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 5

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS on September 29, 2020, the Court denied Su and Wang’s motion for
summary judgment, see Wei Su v. Sotheby’s, Inc., 490 F. Supp. 3d 725, 728 (S.D.N.Y. 2020);
WHEREAS the parties disagree about the “order of proof” at trial, Dkt. 182;
WHEREAS Su and Wang propose filing two motions in limine and have adequately
explained the legal basis for each such that further motion practice is unnecessary in advance of a
bench trial, Dkt. 183;
WHEREAS Yeh opposes both motions, Dkt. 184; and
WHEREAS this matter is otherwise bench trial ready.
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 their 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 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 729–30.1 Regardless of when the claim

Given Yeh’s arguments to date, the Court anticipates that Yeh will argue that Su was not a bona fide
purchaser and accordingly, his conversion claim accrued in 2007.
1

2

Case 1:17-cv-04577-VEC Document 199 Filed 01/04/22 Page 3 of 5

accrued, Yeh filed his cross-claim in May 2019, more 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 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 Wang’s motion to exclude 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.” (internal citation
omitted)). Accordingly, Su and Wang’s 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 evidence 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 were 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 Wang’s motion is denied.

3

Case 1:17-cv-04577-VEC Document 199 Filed 01/04/22 Page 4 of 5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 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
443 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:
1. Whether either party wishes to present testimony from a witness who would testify
remotely and, if so, which witness;
2. If either party proposes to have one or more witnesses testify remotely, what
electronic platform would be used and how would the parties propose to handle
exhibits for such witnesses, if the Court agrees to permit remote testimony;
3. Which witnesses (whether proposed to testify live or remotely) require interpreters
and whether the parties have agreed on interpreter(s) for the trial; and
4. Whether any of the trial participants (counsel, witnesses, or client representatives)
remain unvaccinated against COVID-19.2

2

The Court highly encourages any unvaccinated persons to get vaccinated. Not only is the vaccine safe,
effective, and free, it will also make the trial go more smoothly given that the Court must follow more stringent
social distancing protocols for unvaccinated persons than for vaccinated persons.

4

Case 1:17-cv-04577-VEC Document 199 Filed 01/04/22 Page 5 of 5

SO ORDERED.
____________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Date: January 4, 2022
New York, New York

5