Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Decision Had Preclusive Effect Though Testimony Barred
Judge Feffer Disallowed Party From Presenting Witnesses, Documents As Sanction; Opinion Says Judge Hammock Found Collateral Estoppel Applied Despite Evidence Having Been Restricted
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Four of the Court of Appeal for this district has held that one judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court was correct in giving preclusive effect to a determination by another judge of that court, rejecting the contention that the issue at hand was not “fairly litigated” in the first trial because the judge barred the losing part from presenting evidence as a sanction for rules violations.
In an interpleader action tried before then-Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Feffer (now a private judge), it was determined that defendant Weijing “Jessie” Zhao had no ownership interest in Global Valley, an Alhambra business. Zhao appealed, but then abandoned that appeal.
She then brought an action for breach of fiduciary duty in which she claimed the ownership interest Feffer had found to be non-existent. Issue preclusion did not apply, Zhao contended, pointing to the First District Court of Appeal’s 2008 decision in Murphy v. Murphy in which it was held that “[a] party urging collateral estoppel must prove that the issue was actually litigated and that the evidence was not restricted….”
Rules Violations
The evidence was severely restricted at the trial before Feffer, Zhao noted, because she was barred from introducing documents or putting on witnesses (other than herself) because she had not filed a witness list or an exhibit list. Her attorney was allowed to cross examine witnesses.
Judge Randolph Hammock granted summary judgment to the defendants, declaring:
“It is non-sensical to assert that [in] every case where there is an issue preclusion analysis, this Court must first determine whether material evidence in the prior case was ‘restricted,’ and if it was. whether that automatically renders any decision made therein lacking res judicata/collateral estoppel effect.
“…[T]there are many instances where evidence is restricted by a trial judge due to discovery violations, etc. In such an event, when willfully caused by a party, this cannot mean that a resulting final judgment does not have res judicata/collateral estoppel effect. That would be absurd, and would simply give incentive for a party to violate rules and inevitable avoid such an effect, since that party’s evidence was ‘restricted’ at trial.”
If Feffer erred, he said, Zhao could have sought to establish that by following through with her appeal.
The judge went on to say:
“No matter how you spin it. the simple fact is that Plaintiff in this case is merely attempting lo re-litigate the exact ownership issue which was adequately and fairly presented in the interpleader action. Nothing more; nothing less.”
Collins’s Opinion
Agreeing with Hammock, Justice Audrey Collins said in Thursday’s unpublished opinion:
“To the extent Zhao’s ability to present any evidence was limited, any such limitation resulted from her own actions. Judge Feffer limited Zhao’s presentation of evidence because she failed to follow local rules regarding the timing of pretrial disclosures. Although Zhao could have challenged this ruling in her appeal of the interpleader judgment, she abandoned that appeal and allowed the judgment to stand. Zhao now argues that Judge Feffer’s ruling was ‘improper,’ ‘inexplicable,’ ‘contradicted by a number of legal authorities,’ and an ‘excessive decision to penalize’ Zhao. However, she may not collaterally attack the interpleader judgment in a separate litigation because she was unsatisfied with the result.”
The case is Zhao v. Global Valley, B304372.
Zhao’s lawyers on appeal were Rosendo Gonzalez and Zachary Gonzalez of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Gonzalez & Gonzalez. J. Andrew Douglas, David Kim and Max Yueh of the Glendale firm of Wright Kim Douglas represented Global Valley.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company