California Court of Appeal Jun 30, 2015 No. D065303Unpublished
Filed 6/30/15 One Easy Loan v. Wei CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ONE EASY LOAN, INC., et al., D065303
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00085219- CU-MC-CTL) DAVID WEI,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Ronald S. Prager, Judge. Affirmed.
David Wei, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Lawton Law Firm, Dan A. Lawton and Joseph C. Kracht for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.
Three shareholders of One Easy Loan, Inc. (OEL), James Dodds, Dudley
McIlhenny and Gail Peterson (collectively, the shareholders), sued Priority Student
Loans, Inc. and OEL's former directors David Wei, Chi-Hsien Lee, and Hsin-Hui Meng
(collectively defendants), alleging, among other things, that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and diverted corporate assets and opportunities. The jury found
defendants, except Meng, liable and awarded the shareholders damages. The
shareholders appealed the damages award. (Dodds et al. v. Meng et al. (Oct. 23, 2012,
D058766) [nonpub. opn.] (Dodds I).) In Dodds I, we reversed on the issue of damages
only and remanded for a new trial. On remand, the court held a bench trial on damages
As background, we considered the issue of setoffs in Dodds I. We found the trial
court erred in permitting defendants to seek setoffs for loans to OEL for the first time in
closing argument. (Dodds I, supra, at pp. 46, 49, fn. 7.) However, we concluded the trial
court could consider the issue of setoffs on remand so long as the shareholders were
given a fair opportunity to refute defendants' entitlement to recover such sums. (Id. at pp.
49-50.) After the damages trial, the trial court concluded "that any issue regarding setoffs
was addressed during the negotiations to set a value for OEL."
In this appeal, Wei failed to cite any authority or evidence in the record supporting
his argument that the trial court was required to subtract $175,000 from the damages
award based on a loan to OEL. His argument is completely devoid of citations to
evidence or authority. Wei had the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error. It was
his duty to develop his argument and support it with adequate citation to the record, and
the failure to do so may be deemed a waiver of the issue. (Duarte v. Chino Community
Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) We presume the trial court correctly found
any issue of setoffs was considered in valuing OEL and conclude Wei waived his
argument on appeal.
8
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are entitled to recover their costs on
appeal.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the judgment awarding damages to shareholders, holding that the appellant waived his challenge to the conspiracy finding by failing to raise it in a prior appeal and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its credibility determinations or its rejection of the appellant's setoff claim.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant engaged in a conspiracy.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in disregarding the appellant's expert witness testimony.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to subtract a loan from the damages award.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Whether Wei engaged in a plan to divert OEL's corporate assets and opportunities was a matter he should have raised in the prior appeal.”
“The trier of the facts is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses.”