Filed 8/25/26 Ou v. Li CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
ALAN OU, B345166
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV36429)
v.
KELLY MI LI,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steve Cochran, Judge. Affirmed.
Harris Law Group and Halil Hasic for Defendant and Appellant.
Anderson Yeh, Edward M. Anderson and Regina Yeh for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment awarding plaintiff and respondent Alan Ou $343,750 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages against defendant and appellant Kelly Mi Li. The jury found that Ou and Li formed a partnership to develop and produce Bling Dynasty, a reality television series following the lives of wealthy Asian Americans in Los Angeles. At trial, Ou presented evidence that Li breached their partnership agreement by concealing from him that she entered into a production agreement for Bling Empire, which was another reality show that followed the lives of wealthy Asian Americans in Los Angeles. Ou sought half of the executive producer fees Li earned for Bling Empire, and fees Ou claimed he could have earned had he been credited as an executive producer on Bling Empire.
On appeal from the judgment, Li does not brief adequately her challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of liability, its award of compensatory damages, and its finding Li engaged in conduct warranting punitive damages. Li also fails to show the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting a statement she made on the first episode of Bling Empire to the effect that her former husband perpetrated a massive cyber fraud in which she had no involvement that resulted in the seizure of most of the couple’s assets. Lastly, she forfeits her claims the compensatory damages award compensated Ou for the same injury twice and the punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive. We thus affirm.
3
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 We summarize only those facts pertinent to our disposition of this appeal.
1. Bling Dynasty and other projects Li pursued In 2013, Ou was a creative development executive in the entertainment industry. Ou, Justin Huang, and Shiva Elahi created a project titled Bling Dynasty, which was a concept for a reality series that would follow the lives of wealthy Asian Americans in Los Angeles. Ou, Huang, and Elahi cast Li for the show; Li had presented herself as a wealthy self-made entrepreneur.
In early 2014, Ou and his original producing partners, Huang and Elahi, pitched Bling Dynasty to various entities. Although Ou and his partners initially contracted with an entertainment production company to develop the project, that company abandoned the project in or around May 2014. Although Huang, Elahi, and all of the original cast except Li also abandoned the project, Huang and Elahi told Ou that he could move forward on Bling Dynasty without Huang and Elahi.
According to Ou, in mid-2014, Ou and Li orally formed a partnership to develop and produce the Bling Dynasty show and share the proceeds of the project equally. Ou claims he and Li
1 We derive our Factual and Procedural Background in part from the parties’ admissions in their filings and Ou’s assertions that Li does not dispute in her reply brief. (See Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 764, 772, fn. 2, 773–774 (Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs) [employing this approach].)
4
then attempted to assemble a cast for the show and pitched it to several potential buyers. Ou asserts that in the middle of 2015 or 2016, Li stated she was no longer interested in working on Bling Dynasty.
In 2015, Li entered into a producing partnership with reality producer Johnnie Raines to develop a project called “C.R.A.Y.,” a show featuring wealthy Asian Americans. Ou claims that when Li pitched the C.R.A.Y. project to Raines, she recommended casting two individuals who had been selected as cast members for the Bling Dynasty project. Li and Raines attempted unsuccessfully to sell “C.R.A.Y.” to a buyer for approximately two and a half years.
In 2018, Li entered into a producing partnership with a television producer named Jeff Jenkins to develop another reality show following the lives of wealthy Asian Americans in Los Angeles. Li and Jenkins ultimately sold the project to Netflix. In 2021, Netflix released the show under the title Bling Empire. Netflix aired three seasons of the show, totaling 26 episodes. The cast included Li, along with two individuals Ou and Li had previously considered casting for Bling Dynasty. Jenkins and Netflix also created a spinoff series called Bling Empire: New York, which had one season comprised of eight episodes in which Li was not a cast member.
Li’s producer agreement with Jenkins for Bling Empire entitled her to an executive producer credit and 25 percent of the so-called “producer pot,” a term that refers to 10 percent of the per-episode budget of a television series. The parties stipulated that $550,000 was Netflix’s budget for each episode of Bling Empire.
5
Ou claims that although he remained in contact with Li after she told him she had abandoned Bling Dynasty, Li never informed him of the projects she pursued with Raines and Jenkins.
At trial, Li claimed the only compensation she received in connection with Bling Empire was under her talent agreement, and that she was suing Jenkins for her producer compensation.
2. The trial court proceedings On October 4, 2021, Ou filed a complaint against Li. Ou later filed the operative second amended complaint, alleging, inter alia, breach of express oral contract, “breach of fiduciary duty: constructive fraud in violation of Civil Code section 1573,” breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an express oral contract, and “breach of fiduciary duty (breach of duty of loyalty or preference).” (Boldface & some capitalization omitted.)
The trial was before a jury in September 2024. At trial, Ou sought as compensatory damages half of the executive producer fees Li earned for Bling Empire, along with executive producer fees Ou claimed he could have earned on a future series had he been credited as an executive producer on Bling Empire.
The jury found Li liable for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duties, and concluded that Li acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in breaching her fiduciary duties to Ou. The jury found, inter alia, “After Li entered into her written attachment agreement for the ‘Bling Dynasty’ project in October 2013, . . . she and . . . Ou entered into another contract . . . with respect to the development and production of that project.” The jury awarded Ou $343,750 in damages for “the breach of contract and/or breach of the implied covenant of good
6
faith and fair dealing by Li,” $343,750 for “Li’s breach of fiduciary duties to Ou,” and $200,000 in punitive damages.
On January 27, 2025, the trial court filed a judgment awarding Ou $343,750 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. Li timely appealed from the judgment.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
“When a party contends insufficient evidence supports a jury verdict, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. [Citation.] ‘ “[T]he power of [the] appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence contradicted or uncontradicted which will support the [verdict].” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] We must ‘view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in its favor. . . .’ [Citation.] . . . ” ’ [Citation.]” (Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188.)
We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. (Loy v. Kenney (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 403, 406.) “An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision ‘ “ ‘ “falls outside the bounds of reason” under the applicable law and the relevant facts.’ ” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Consumer Protection Group, LLC v. Signal Brands, LLC (2026) --- Cal.App.5th ---, --- [2026 WL 2210020, at p. *13].)
Because our resolution of Li’s claim that the compensatory damages award is “duplicative” does not turn on disputed facts (see Discussion, part C, post), we review that claim de novo (see Shewry v. Begil (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 639, 642).
We also review de novo whether the punitive damages award exceeds the limits federal due process imposes on such awards. (Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 82,
7
90–91 (Rubio).) In reviewing the award, “ ‘[f]indings of historical fact made in the trial court are still entitled to the ordinary measure of appellate deference.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 91.)
We presume a trial court’s judgment is correct, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. (County of Los Angeles v. Niblett (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 454, 462–463 (Niblett).) To rebut that presumption, the appellant has the burden to show error with cogent argument supported by legal authority and citation to the record. (Id. at p. 463.) “ ‘The appellant bears this burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness accorded to the trial court’s decision, regardless of the applicable standard of review.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
DISCUSSION
Li waives her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict by failing to provide an adequate summary of the relevant facts. (Discussion, part A, post.) Further, Li does not demonstrate the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting testimony in which Li mentioned briefly criminal proceedings against her former husband. (See Discussion, part B, post.) Lastly, Li forfeits her contentions that the compensatory damages award “risks duplicative recovery” and the punitive damages award exceeds federal constitutional limits. (Discussion, parts C–D, post.)2
2 Li also contends, “Even if [the] individual errors [she raises] were harmless, their cumulative effect denied [her] a fair trial.” Because Li raises only one claim of error with arguable merit (which alleged error was nonetheless harmless) (see Discussion, part B, post), her cumulative error claim fails (see
8
Before addressing these issues, we deny Ou’s motion for judicial notice of certain materials relating to an entity titled “Sue Ya, Inc.” and Li’s lawsuit against Jenkins because they have no bearing on our resolution of this appeal. (See Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at pp. 792– 793, fn. 23 [noting that an appellate court may decline to take “judicial notice of ‘materials . . . not relevant to [the appellate court’s] determination of the issues on appeal’ ”].)
A. Li Waives Her Contest to the Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Liability and the Awards of Compensatory and Punitive Damages “ ‘A party who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding must set forth, discuss, and analyze all the evidence on that point, both favorable and unfavorable.’ [Citation.]” (E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1267, 1285.) “When an appellant’s opening brief states only the favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Slone v. El Centro Regional Medical Center (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1160, 1173–1174 (Slone).) “A reviewing court will not independently review the record to make up for the appellant’s failure to carry its burden on appeal.” (E.I., supra, at pp. 1285–1286.)
In her opening brief, Li raises the following challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict:
People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 [rejecting a claim of cumulative error because the court ruled that “only one harmless error” occurred below]).
9
(1) Li was not liable for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duties because Ou did not prove “the existence of an enforceable, ongoing partnership” between the parties; (2) Ou did not establish the amount of compensatory damages with reasonable certainty; and (3) the award of punitive damages is defective because Ou did not present clear and convincing evidence of Li’s malice, oppression, or fraud. (See also Yaffee v. Skeen (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1281, 1308, 1310–1311 [indicating an appellate claim that the plaintiff did not prove damages with reasonable certainty is a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to the damages award]; Rubio, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at pp. 104–105 [indicating an argument that the plaintiff did not prove the malice, oppression, or fraud required for imposition of punitive damages is a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim].)
Although the parties spent four days presenting their case to the jury, the double-spaced factual summary included in Li’s opening brief is just under two pages in length.3 In her summary, Li focuses on evidence favorable to her positions on appeal, including her assertion she testified that “there were never verbal agreements nor written agreements to establish a partnership with [Ou,]” and evidence she claims establishes she “independently . . . develop[ed]” Bling Empire and “undert[ook the project] without reliance on any prior failed pitch.”
3 Although the “statement of facts” section of the opening brief is approximately four pages long (boldface & capitalization omitted), Li devoted half of that section to describing events that occurred at trial (e.g., Li’s objection to Ou’s questions regarding “federal criminal proceedings involving her former husband”).
10
Glaringly absent from Li’s opening brief is evidence adduced at trial supporting Ou’s assertions that (1) the parties had a continuing partnership, (2) Ou’s compensatory damages were reasonably certain, and (3) Li acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. For instance, Li—quite inexplicably—fails to address Ou’s testimony that in mid-2014, Ou and Li orally agreed to become partners in developing and producing Bling Dynasty and share equally the financial proceeds from the show. Li also makes no mention of Ou’s testimony to the effect that after they made this agreement, (1) he and Li attempted to assemble a cast for the show, and (2) Ou disclosed to Li certain characteristics of the show he believed would make it successful, including story lines, cast combinations, and the setting.
Admittedly, Li acknowledges in her opening brief that sometime after 2014, she partnered with Raines to “create a show [about] wealthy Asian Americans,” and, after that project failed, she partnered with Jenkins to create Bling Empire. Li nonetheless ignores Ou’s testimony indicating that: (1) in the middle of 2015 or 2016, Li told him she no longer wished to work on Bling Dynasty because she “felt that it was really difficult to put th[e] cast together” and she wanted to instead become a film producer, and (2) even though Ou and Li remained in contact thereafter, Li never told Ou about her projects with Raines and Jenkins. Li also does not mention that a “cast performer agreement” she executed in 2019 for Bling Empire indicated the show was at that time titled Bling Dynasty. Further, she omits from her opening brief any mention of (1) her testimony the cast of Bling Empire included her, Kane Lim, and Andrew Gray; and (2) Ou’s testimony that he and Li had discussed casting her, Lim, and Gray for Bling Dynasty.
11
Additionally, Ou’s compensatory damages theory is based in part on his assertion that he is entitled to a percentage of Bling Empire’s per-episode budget. Yet, nowhere in Li’s opening brief is there any mention of the parties’ stipulation that the budget for Bling Empire was $550,000 per episode. She also makes no mention of Ou’s expert witness, business transactional attorney Richard Marks, who provided testimony supporting Ou’s compensatory damages theory (e.g., he opined on the monetary value of being credited as an executive producer on a series).4 This nonexhaustive list of evidence favorable to Ou that is missing from the opening brief establishes that Li did not discharge her obligation to “ ‘ “set forth in [her opening] brief all the material evidence on the point[s she challenges] and not merely [her] own evidence.” . . . . [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (See Slone, supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1173–1174.) Accordingly, we deem Li to have waived her challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of liability and its awards of compensatory and punitive damages. (See ibid.)
4 Insofar as Li argues the value of a lost executive producer credit on a future project is — as a matter of law — too speculative to be compensable, she forfeits that contention by failing to support it with cogent argument and citation to authority. (See United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 156 (United Grand Corp.) [deeming a contention forfeited because the appellant failed to support it with cogent argument and citations to the record and legal authority].) We also reject Li’s belated attempt in her reply brief to support her contention that the jury’s award of compensatory damages was speculative. (Niblett, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at pp. 477–478 [holding that an appellant forfeited appellate claims by asserting them for the first time in the reply brief].)
12
B. Li Fails To Demonstrate the Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error By Admitting Evidence of Criminal Proceedings Against Her Former Husband Evidence Code section 352 provides: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” (Evid. Code, § 352.) We review the trial court’s admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. (Standards of Review, ante.)
Li argues, “The trial court abused its discretion by admitting highly inflammatory evidence of unrelated criminal proceedings” against her former husband, thereby violating Evidence Code section 352. (Boldface & some capitalization omitted.) Li insists she “was not a party to those proceedings, and no claim in this case depended on their merits.”
As a preliminary matter, we note that Li does not properly direct us to the evidence she claims the trial court erroneously admitted. The only record citations she provides in the parts of her briefing in which she raises this claim of error are to “1 RT 6– 12” and “3 RT 22–23.” Pages six to 12 of volume one of the reporter’s transcript contain a colloquy the trial court had with counsel at a hearing held more than a year and a half before the trial. Volume three of the reporter’s transcript contains pages 601 to “778/900”; no pages designated 22 or 23 appear therein. Li thus fails to discharge her obligation to “direct us to the parts of the record that show the claimed error.” (See Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 626, fn. 8; see also ibid. [“ ‘An
13
appellate court is not required to search the record to determine whether or not the record supports appellant[’s] claim of error.’ ”].)
In his appellate brief, Ou states the testimony his counsel “elicit[ed from Li] about the criminal proceedings” appears on page 910, line 26 to page 912, line 15 of the fourth volume of the reporter’s transcript. In that excerpt, Li (1) acknowledged that she made the following statement on the first episode of Bling Empire and (2) testified that the contents of that statement are true: “In my 20s I was married to a Chinese guy, and we lived in a very privileged outrageous lifestyle, you know, seven cars, four houses. I think at the time we were spending about 400,000 a month on our black Amex. Until one day, the government showed up and took everything from us, and my ex-husband was arrested. And I didn’t know at the time, but he was running one of the largest cyber scams in American history. All of our assets were frozen, and we gave the government, I think it was like $168 million.”
We need not decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the aforesaid testimony because Li fails to demonstrate any such error was prejudicial. “ ‘[W]hen the error is one of state law only, it generally does not warrant reversal unless there is a reasonable probability that in the absence of the error, a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached.’ [Citation.] An appellant bears the burden of satisfying this state law prejudice standard. [Citation.]” (Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 777.)
In the statement Li made on Bling Empire, she disclaimed any knowledge of her former husband’s fraud. For that reason,
14
we reject as speculative Li’s assertion this “evidence improperly invited guilt-by-association reasoning and emotional contamination of the jury’s deliberations.” Furthermore, Li offers no analysis or citation to the record to support her assertion the admission of her testimony was “especially prejudicial given the otherwise thin evidentiary basis for [Ou’s] claims.” Accordingly, Li fails to discharge her burden of showing that if the trial court had excluded Li’s testimony concerning her former husband’s fraud and the resulting seizure of the couple’s assets, there is a reasonable probability a result more favorable to her would have been reached at trial.
C. We Reject Li’s Claim the Award of Compensatory Damages Is Duplicative The judgment states in relevant part: “Li is liable to . . . Ou for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duties, with judgment entered thereon for compensatory damages in the amount of $343,750, with said amount being applied equally and jointly to each claim.” Li complains, “The judgment improperly applies a single damages figure to breach of contract, breach of implied covenant [of good faith and fair dealing], and breach of fiduciary duty.” She further argues, “Such an undifferentiated award risks duplicative recovery and precludes meaningful appellate review.”5
5We construe this appellate claim as a challenge only to the compensatory damages award because the trial court did not award punitive damages for Ou’s claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
15
“ ‘[R]egardless of the nature or number of legal theories advanced by [a] plaintiff, [the plaintiff] is not entitled to more than a single recovery for each distinct item of compensable damage supported by the evidence.’ [Citation.]” (Sanchez v. Martinez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 535, 546.) Here, the judgment provides that the compensatory damages award “applie[s] equally and jointly to each claim” (italics added), thereby indicating Ou can recover no more than a total of $343,750 in such damages. Li does not explain in her opening appellate brief why she apparently believes this provision of the judgment falls short of safeguarding her against any risk that Ou would attain “duplicative recovery.” Likewise, in light of the jury’s finding that Ou suffered the same amount of damages for each of the three legal theories he advanced at trial, we are at a loss as to why Li believes “meaningful appellate review” of the compensatory damages award is not possible. Li thus forfeits her challenge to the judgment’s purported “undifferentiated” compensatory damages award. (See Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277 [“ ‘We are not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them.’ ”].)
In her reply, Li contends the compensatory damages award is duplicative for a reason independent of the fact the same figure was awarded for three different legal theories. Specifically, she claims that because “[t]he verdict awarded damages both for: [¶] . . . alleged lost executive producer compensation[,] and [¶] . . . the asserted ‘value’ of an executive producer credit,” Ou was “compensated [for] the same alleged injury twice.” Li forfeits this
Rather, the court awarded punitive damages only for Li’s breach of her fiduciary duties.
16
argument by withholding it from her opening brief. (Niblett, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at pp. 477–478.)
D. Li Forfeits Her Constitutional Challenge to the Punitive Damages Award In determining whether a punitive damages award violates the federal constitution, courts examine “ ‘three guideposts’ ”: “ ‘ “(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Rubio, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 90.)
In her opening brief, Li argues, without any analysis or supporting record citation, that “[t]he conduct at issue involved no physical harm, no concealment, and no repeated wrongdoing.” In her reply, she adds the following, which is also not supported by legal reasoning or citation to the record: “[The punitive damages award] rests on speculative compensatory damages and low reprehensibility conduct involving no physical harm, public safety risk, or repeated fraudulent scheme.” Li thus forfeits her constitutional challenge to the punitive damages award. (See United Grand Corp., supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 156.)
17
DISPOSITION
We deny plaintiff and respondent Alan Ou’s motion for judicial notice. The judgment is affirmed. Ou is awarded his costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BENDIX, J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
WEINGART, J.