IIG Wireless v. Yi, No. G053393 (D4d3 Apr. 23, 2018)
This is another one of those grab bag cases where everyone raises way too many issues after a trial and everything gets affirmed. It’s some kind of partnership dispute over a cell phone retail business.
Briefly:
The fraud exception to the parole evidence rule, Code Civ. Proc. § 1856(g), applied to claims of fraud in the inducement as well as to claims raising a defense that a contract is invalid due to fraud. Thus, oral statements contrary to the terms of the contract were admissible, to the extent that they supported plaintiff’s fraud claim.
Statements made during closing argument were not misconduct because they were supported by substantial evidence.
Counsel can’t testify during closing argument to explain that rog responses were a “typo.” But since the trial court sustained the objection and appropriately instructed the jury, there’s no grounds for reversal there.
A statement that plaintiff was in arrears on child support was not inadmissible under Evidence Code § 352 when offered to rebut his assertion that he did what he did to support his children from a prior marriage.
The court didn’t commit misconduct when it questioned witnesses and admonished plaintiff for answering questions before the court ruled on objections.
Because the damages evidence was disputed, damages weren’t insufficient as a matter of law.
Various nonsuits were properly granted, because the theories weren’t supported by substantial evidence.
The trial court didn’t err by failing to give plaintiff leave to amend its claim according to proof to add an aiding and abetting theory, because the record didn’t establish that there was substantial evidence in support of that claim.
The admissibility of testimony from a tax expert wasn’t reversible error, because even if it shouldn’t have been admitted, plaintiff didn’t make any effort to show prejudice.
A bunch of arguments wouldn’t be addressed because they were raised only on reply.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment