Case Number: BC447595    Hearing Date: July 21, 2014    Dept: 46

Posted 7-18-2014 at 1:45 p.m.
For Final Status Conference, Cal. #5 7/21/2014

Case Number: BC447595
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY VS LI YANG LI ET AL
Filing Date: 10/18/2010
Case Type: Other Compl-not Tort or Complex (General Jurisdiction)

07/21/2014
Final Status Conference

Trial Commencement Date

The trial is set for 07/30/2014 but the court is dark on 07/31 and 08/01. The CMC statements indicated that the trial would take 3 to 5 days. Parties to discuss commencement of trial date. The court anticipates commencing the trial on 08/04/2014 assuming the trial is a maximum of 5 days.

Jury Trial v. Court Trial

Wang and Lee are entitled to a jury trial on their Cross-Compliant as it relates to contractual and tort claims. Jury fees were posted in this matter on 11/16/2012. There is no right to jury trial on the interpleader Complaint. Parties to discuss the order of trials.

Motions In Limine by Defendants/Cross-defendants Li and Lu

Li & Lu’s Motion In Limine #1 to exclude evidence of payments of premiums on the New York Life Insurance policy is denied. The assertion has been made that decedent Li continued to pay insurance premiums after the second marriage to Wang. These payments are presumptively made with community property under F.C. §760. The payments are relevant to the community portion of the whole life insurance policy. The community portion of the policy must be determined since under P.C. §5020 husband Li could not gift second wife Wang’s portion of the community interest in the policy absent spousal consent.

Li & Lu’s Motion In Limine #2 to exclude evidence of prior settlement offers, negotiations, or offers to compromise made by the Parties regarding any proposed distributions of the life insurance policy proceeds under the subject policy is DENIED. E.C. 1152 does not apply to this action. Such communications between the parties relating to settlement of the dispute over the ownership of the life insurance proceeds goes directly to the formation of a contract which is in dispute. The very premise upon which is request is made (“especially given that no such finalized or agreed upon informal resolution between the Parties hereto was ever formally reached and agreed upon”) is in dispute; excluding this evidence is in effect precluding Wang and Lee from presenting evidence of breach of contract.

Li & Lu’s Motion In Limine #3 to exclude evidence of an oral contract regarding the disbursement of disputed insurance policy proceeds is DENIED. It is irrelevant to the oral contract whether or not NYLI required a notarized written settlement agreement; it is a question of fact as to whether the contract constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree; Li & Lu dispute the existence of a valid written contract and therefore and enforceable oral agreement could constitute a basis for division of the insurance proceeds even if the written agreement is found to be void.

Wang and Lee’s Motion in Limine #1 to exclude Cross-Complaints Li and Lu’s experts is DENIED. The initial trial date was set for 1/25/2012. On 09/26/2011 the trial date was vacated and a TSC was set for 12/14/2011. The TSC was continued to 1/25/2012. On 1/25/2012 the matter was set for trial on 1/16/2013. At the time the trial was set for 1/16/2013. The matter did not go to trial on 1/16/2013. On 02/07/2013 the motion to reopen discovery on Wang and Lee’s cross-complaint and defenses thereto was granted and the case was continued and reset for trial based upon a recent cross-compliant 11/13/2013. The demand for disclosure of expert witnesses was served on Li and Lu on 09/05/2013. The court finds that this is 69 days prior to the then-scheduled trial date of 11/13/2013. The demand set a disclosure date of 10/11/2013, a date the court finds is 33 days prior to trial. Contrary to Li and Lu’s argument expert discovery was in fact reopened as to experts and all discovery relative to the cross complaint on 02/07/2013. CCP Sections 2034.220 and 2034.230(b) state that the demand must be served no later than 70 days before the initial trial date and the response must be made due 50 days prior to the initial trial date. The demand for disclosure of experts did not comply with CCP Sections 2034.220 and 2034.230(b) and is therefore not entitled to be given the effect of precluding Li and Lu’s expert or any expert called by either party.

Wang and Lee’s Motion in Limine #2 to exclude Cross-Complaints Li and Lu’s proffer of Li’s handwriting samples is DENIED, but these are not admissible absent a foundation by Li or other appropriate witness of their authenticity.

Wang and Lee’s Motion in Limine #3 to exclude Cross-Complaints Li and Lu’s exhibit 54 – a map of Li’s High School is GRANTED. This evidence is irrelevant and also is excluded under E.C. 352.

Wang and Lee’s Motion in Limine #3 to exclude Cross-Complaints Li and Lu’s exhibit 55 which is a translated Chinese school schedule is GRANTED until foundation is shown. The document is hearsay. This evidence may be admitted as a business record hearsay exception provided the custodian of the business records from the school appears and testifies to the authenticity and business records foundational requirement. Further to the extent that these documents need to be translated, the declaration of the translator is inadmissible – the translator must testify in person under E.C. §710.

Wang and Lee’s Motion in Limine #3 to exclude Cross-Complaints Li and Lu’s exhibit 58 is GRANTED. Internet information is hearsay. The document is also excluded as irrelevant and under E.C. 352.

Wang and Lee’s Motion in Limine #4 regarding exclusion of affidavits/declarations in lieu of live testimony is GRANTED. Declarations are hearsay. They are admissible only in motions, but not at trial. See CCP 2009; Rowan vs. City and County of San Francisco (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 308. Allowing testimony by declaration is a violation of E.C. §710.

Wang and Lee’s Motion in Limine #5 regarding exclusion of Exhibits 57, 62, 63 is GRANTED for the same reasons as MIL #4.

Wang and Lee’s Motion in Limine #5 regarding exclusion of Exhibit 58 – news articles is GRANTED. New articles are hearsay. The court does not take judicial notice of unreliable unsourced documents. The document is also excluded as irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative, etc., under E.C. 352.

Statement of Case For Jury

Both statements are too confusing due to the names and convoluted facts. The court proposes the following.

Xin Ping Li, referred to as husband, died on 09/18/2009, leaving a whole life insurance policy valued at $1,000,000 with New York Life Insurance Company that he had obtained in 1998, but paid on up until his death. New York Life Insurance Company has deposited the funds from the policy with the court as there are conflicting claims to the policy.

Mr. Li was married twice. His first marriage was between 1988 and 2000 with Ms. Lu. They had a child Li Yang Li in 1992. The first wife Ms. Lu and child Li Yang Li are cross-defendants in this action. Mr. Li married Ms. Wang in 2008 and had second child Ella Lee who was born in 3/2009. Ms. Wang and Ella Lee are cross-complainants in this action.

Mr. Li named his first child Li Yang Li as the only beneficiary on the insurance policy. Li Yang Li, Ms. Wang and Ella Lee all claim an interest in the insurance proceeds.

Ms. Wang and Ella Lee claim a 50% interest in the insurance proceeds based upon oral and written contracts with Li Yang Li. Li Yang Li denies these contracts were made and claims that the written contract was a forgery and fraud.

Ms Wang and Ella Lee also claim that Ms. Lu, husband’s first wife, tortuously interfered with their contract with Li Yang Li. Ms. Lu denies this contention.

Ms. Wang and Ella Lee claim that they are entitled to 50% of the proceed of the insurance policy based upon breach of contract and for damages due to the claimed contractual interference. Li Yang Li and Ms. Lu deny all claims made by Ms. Wang and Ella Lee and contend that Li Yang Li is entitled to all the insurance proceeds.

Jury Instructions

The court will review these with the parties at the time of the FSC.

Special Verdict Forms

The court will review these with the parties at the time of the FSC.