414 F. App'x 12
9th Cir.2011Background
- Optional appeals three district court decisions in a case arising from alleged fraudulent activity by Kyung Joon Kim with Bora Lee, Erica Kim, First Stephora Avenue, Inc., and Alexandria Investments, LLC.
- The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the Kim Claimants on fraud claims and denied Optional’s Rule 59/e or Rule 60 relief, while excluding some evidence offered by Optional.
- The jury returned a verdict for Optional on a conversion claim, which the district court later set aside via Rule 50(b) motion, prompting appellate review.
- Optional argued that the Kim Claimants improperly removed funds from Optional, causing Optional’s trading license to be revoked and damages in the tens of billions of Won.
- The panel reverses the district court on the conversion claim and remands for reinstatement of the jury verdict, while affirming some other district court rulings and remanding for other proceedings as needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud harms required for concealment/misrepresentation | Optional contends harm shown through stock sale profits by Kim Claimants. | Kim Claimants argue no proven harm from fraud claims. | Judgment as a matter of law affirmed for fraud claims (no harm proven). |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conversion | Optional presented sufficient evidence of wrongful taking and damages. | Kim Claimants dispute elements and damages. | Jury verdict for conversion reinstated; sufficient circumstantial evidence found. |
| Liability of Alexandria and First Stephora | Kim Claimants controlled Alexandria and First Stephora; liable for conversion. | No basis to hold them liable separate from Kim Claimants. | Correctly included as defendants; sufficient evidence supports their liability. |
| District court's grant of a new trial on conversion | New trial warranted due to weight of evidence against verdict. | No basis to grant a new trial; verdict supported by record. | District court's grant of a new trial reversed; no abuse of discretion; reinstates verdict. |
| Reconsideration denial and exclusion of evidence | District court should reconsider in light of Kim’s conviction and new Korean proceedings; exclusion of evidence improper. | No error in reconsideration denial or evidentiary exclusions. | Affirmed reconsideration denial and affirmed evidentiary exclusions as proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 556 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for de novo review of JMOL)
- Melanson v. United Air Lines, Inc., 931 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1991) (California law on damages for fraud)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (U.S. 2008) (standard for punitive damages and related issues (not cited for merits here))
- Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of conversion under California law)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc: standard for abuse of discretion in new trial rulings)
- Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal Bank of Can., 833 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1987) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new trial relief)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Keating, 186 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) (foreign proceedings and their relation to domestic litigation)
- Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (preclusion of evidence in light of prior conviction)
- United States v. Bonds, 608 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2010) (avoidance of late-designated expert testimony; evidentiary rulings)