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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
2
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].)
3
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.
4
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
5
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,
6
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
7
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]).
8
(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”).
9
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.
10
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].)
11
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
12
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,
13
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.
14
“ ‘[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.
15
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.)
16
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.
17