Private Client Fiduciary Corporation v. Chopra

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 PRIVATE CLIENT FIDUCIARY CASE NO. 22-CV-00436-LK 11 CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, as Guardian and Conservator ORDER GRANTING IN PART 12 of JOGINDER CHOPRA, M.D., an AND DENYING IN PART Incapacitated Person, STIPULATION 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 PHAM SINGH CHOPRA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion Re Issues Remaining 19 for Trial. Dkt. No. 75. They request an order “limiting the issues for trial to damages, without 20 waiver of Pham Singh Chopra’s Fifth Amendment rights[.]” Id. at 1. The parties specifically ask 21 the Court to order as follows: 22 1. Defendant Pham Chopra does not contest his liability on Plaintiff’s claims asserted against him for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, which is 23 therefore considered established.

24 1 2. Defendant Akal Institute does not contest its liability on Plaintiff’s claim for conversion asserted against Akal Institute, which is therefore considered 2 established.

3 3. The sole remaining issue in the case is Plaintiff’s claimed actual damages arising from defendants’ liability on Plaintiff’s claims, if any. 4 4. The defendants have waived all defenses they might have had as to liability on 5 each of the claims. The defendants reserve and preserve all defenses on the issue of damages and may also dispute the amount of any attorney’s fees or costs 6 sought.

7 5. Mr. Chopra’s stipulation to liability is without prejudice to and does not constitute a waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights in this proceeding which are 8 preserved.

9 6. The jury will be instructed that Pham Chopra’s lability has been established on both the conversion and the breach of fiduciary duty claims and that, as to Pham 10 Chopra, they must determine the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by Dr. Chopra, resulting from all the assets transferred to Pham Chopra and 11 Akal Institute as alleged in the Complaint for Damages.

12 7. The jury will be instructed that Akal Institute’s liability has been established on the conversion claim and that, as to Akal Institute, they must determine the 13 amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by Dr. Chopra resulting from the assets transferred from Dr. Chopra’s accounts on February 22, 2019 as 14 identified in the Complaint for Damages, paragraph 3.5, and in Plaintiff Private Client Fiduciary Corporation’s response to Akal Institute’s Interrogatory No. 2 15 dated March 13, 2023. 16 Dkt. No. 76 at 3–4. 17 Issues for trial and admitted facts are typically presented to the Court in the Pretrial Order. 18 See LCR 16.1. In light of the parties’ agreement regarding various issues, the Court orders that the 19 parties’ Pretrial Order reflect the following regarding claims and defenses, admitted facts, and 20 issues of law: 21 1. Defendant Pham Chopra will not contest his liability on Plaintiff’s claims asserted 22 against him for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, and will therefore not pursue 23 defenses regarding his liability on these claims. 24 1 2. Defendant Akal Institute will not contest its liability on Plaintiff’s claim for conversion 2 asserted against Akal Institute, and will therefore not pursue defenses regarding its 3 liability on this claims. 4 3. The sole remaining issue in the case is Plaintiff’s claimed actual damages arising from

5 defendants’ liability on Plaintiff’s claims, if any, including but not limited to attorney’s 6 fees and costs. 7 The Court declines to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether Mr. Chopra’s stipulation 8 to liability waives his Fifth Amendment rights. See In re Wright, 220 B.R. 543, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 9 1998) (“This Court is not empowered to issue an advisory opinion regarding the legal effect of . . . 10 unspecified future testimony.”). 11 As for the parties’ desired jury instructions, these are normally presented to the Court in 12 the parties’ proposed joint instructions. See LCR 51(e). Here, proposed jury instructions are not 13 due until November 27, 2023. Dkt. No. 73. The parties may renew their request at that time, but 14 they must comply with the procedures set forth in Local Civil Rule 51 and the Court’s Standing

15 Order for All Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 33 at 10. 16 The parties’ Stipulated Motion Re Issues Remaining for Trial is accordingly GRANTED 17 IN PART and DENIED IN PART as described above. 18 Dated this 13th day of June, 2023. 19 A 20 Lauren King United States District Judge 21 22 23 24