Opinion
A113924
12-13-2006
LOLI VICTORIA WANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OAKLAND SUTTER HOTEL, Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff Loli Victoria Wang appeals from a judgment entered after the court granted defense motions for nonsuit and judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
This appeal arises from Wangs complaint against the Oakland Sutter Hotel (Sutter), based on two purported assassination attempts allegedly effected by means of a "carbon monoxide gas murder device" concealed in her hotel room light fixture. According to the complaint, Wang is the object of a vast conspiracy involving Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, the Queen of England, and the fake royal government of the Peoples Republic of China. The conspiracy, which Wang claims has made repeated attempts on her life and stolen her "Royal Jewelries" worth $ 50 million dollars, involves a pact by 65 countries to invade the United States to prevent Canada from falling into American hands. Wang alleges she is the legitimate heiress to the Roman Empire and China, the owner of North America, and the descendent of Genghis Khan.
On January 20, 2006, the case was assigned to the Honorable Robert Freedman for a bench trial commencing January 24, 2006. Wang represented herself, as she has in other actions. The court questioned Wang about her failure to respond to Sutters demand for exchange of expert witness information. Wang initially admitted not having served a response "because [she] was being murdered," but argued that a subpoena of Kaiser Permanente physician Dr. Gary Fries three days before trial was a sufficient response.
Sutter requested a hearing under Evidence Code section 402 to establish Wangs inability to present expert testimony supporting her claim of carbon monoxide poisoning. The court ruled the request was premature and reserved the issue.
During Wangs opening statement, the court focused on her ability to provide admissible evidence supporting the elements of her case. Wang described her proposed evidence. She intended to call three witnesses: emergency unit physician Dr. Fries, who, she asserted, diagnosed her as suffering from carbon monoxide exposure; Raj Singh, the owner of the Sutter Hotel; and Jonah Johnson, a Sutter employee, who would testify that another hotel worker was ordered to install the carbon monoxide "death device" in her room. None of these witnesses were present. Wang said she had subpoenaed each of them two or three times, but could not produce proof at trial that she had done so. She said they had been scared off by death threats from the Mafia and a high profile politician.
Wang claimed that Dr. Fries would have testified about his diagnosis of carbon monoxide exposure and "large internal bleeding." In his absence, Wang intended to submit medical records of his diagnosis and laboratory tests as "expert witness documentation." The court explained to Wang that those records were not admissible without Dr. Fries or another qualified witness to provide a foundation.
Wang said she expected Singh to testify that Queen Elizabeth II and Mayor Jerry Brown directed him to install a "carbon monoxide gas murder device" in her hotel room. The court confirmed with Wang that she did not have a proof of service of a subpoena on Singh with her. Wang asserted, however, that she had served Singh and could provide proof after trial. She claimed Singh did not want to testify because he had been threatened, and she did not want to force him because he might get killed.
Wang expected Johnson to testify that another employee told him he had been ordered to install the carbon monoxide device. She said Johnson had also received death threats and was too frightened to appear in court.
Because her witnesses were afraid to come because of "death threats and murder," Wang explained that she planned to prove her case through her own testimony and 16 exhibits. In response to the courts questions, however, she was unable to identify any admissible evidence supporting her claims that (1) she was exposed to carbon monoxide in her room; (2) it was delivered through a device hidden in her ceiling lamp; or (3) that Queen Elizabeth and/or Mayor Brown were involved in the alleged assassination plot. Her proposed testimony primarily addressed her physical symptoms and a detailed explanation of her theory that Queen Elizabeth II, a pretender to the British throne, was attempting to assassinate Wang because she was the true niece of Queen Elizabeth I and "the direct King and Royal heiress" to the "Roman Empire Gingus Kong throne."
Sutter moved for nonsuit and judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 at the close of Wangs opening statement. Sutter argued Wang had demonstrated an inability to prove that (1) a carbon monoxide killing device was installed in her hotel room; (2) it was installed by anyone from Sutter; (3) Wang was exposed to carbon monoxide; (4) she was injured as a result; and (5) damages. In opposition, Wang argued Sutter had offered no evidence and that, even though her own witnesses were not present in court, her 16 exhibits were admissible "professional declaration exhibits."
The court treated Sutters motion also as a motion in limine and ruled that Wangs proffered evidence "would not be admissible without qualified witnesses—either qualified as experts or with percipient knowledge or, in some instances, as custodians of records to admit the exhibits to which you have referred. [¶] The Court cannot receive evidence, exceptions which are not applicable here, by declaration from either party, whether its from you as plaintiff or the defendant. [¶] The testimony that you represented to the Court that you would give, Im accepting as testimony in the nature of an offer of proof that you perceived or believed you experienced what you related to the Court. But you do not have the qualifications to establish the carbon monoxide was the substance, the device is not here. Youve explained to the Court in detail, and more than once, why certain witnesses may not be available." [¶] So based on this record the Court concludes that you could not be successful in introducing into evidence those items, either of exhibits, testimony or tangible exhibits that would be necessary to establish your claim against the defendant named in this case. Based on this record the court is going to dismiss the action."
The court dismissed the action with prejudice and denied Wangs subsequent new trial motion. The final judgment states: "Defendant contends that the allegations made by Plaintiff require expert testimony and cannot be supported by lay witnesses alone. The Court finds these statements to be true in light of the exposure claims and injuries alleged by Plaintiff in opening statement. The Court determines that the record is sufficient to establish that Plaintiff is unable to fulfill her burden of proof at trial as she is unable to establish the required elements of causation and/or damages or even the existence of a carbon monoxide killing device. Moreover, Plaintiff is unable to establish by admissible evidence: [¶] (1) that there was a `conspiracy to harm or kill her; [¶] (2) that Defendant participated in the alleged `conspiracy to harm or kill her; [¶] (3) that Defendants alleged misconduct proximately caused her alleged injuries; [¶] (4) that she sustained any injuries as a result of the alleged exposure to carbon monoxide; or [¶] (5) that she is entitled to any damages as against the Defendant."
Wang timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Wangs opening brief presents a detailed account of the alleged assassination attempts and a far-ranging explication of the international conspiracy, involving characters as diverse as Hitler, Lady Diana, Genghis Khan, Jesus, and "Nazaress tribal peoples . . . called `Pontius Pirates or `Mafia, " whom she believes to be responsible for those attempts. What follows is a recitation of numerous grounds of perceived error, including that the trial started on January 24, 2006, rather than January 20, 2006, when the cause was called, assigned to a judge and scheduled for the 24th; that Sutter introduced no evidence; that the court prevented Wang from introducing a photo of the alleged "murder weapon"; that the statement of decision contained omissions and ambiguities; and that Wangs witnesses were threatened not to come to court.
Wang fails to demonstrate reversible error. Her opening brief consists largely of headings followed by allegations of error and a string of case citations, without any citation to the relevant portions of the record or discussion of how the cited authority relates to the facts of the case and the trial courts rulings. Wangs reply brief repeats this pattern, listing five pages of various legal principles with only occasional and conclusory references to the rulings in this case and containing almost no cogent argument relating these legal principles to the facts or citation to the record. Faced with briefing of this level of inadequacy, we deem Wangs assertions on appeal to have been abandoned. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119-1120; Strutt v. Ontario Sav. & Loan Assn. (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 866, 873; Fox v. Erickson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 740, 742; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 589, pp. 624-625; § 594, pp. 627-628.)
In any event, none of Wangs appellate claims would change the result for the simple reason that, having failed to provide expert medical testimony, she could not prove her alleged injuries were caused by the alleged carbon monoxide exposure. At trial Wang indicated her intent to call Dr. Fries to testify that she had been injured by carbon monoxide poisoning. She failed, however, to establish that she had exchanged expert witness information as required under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210 and 2034.260. She provided no justification for this failure in the trial court and provides none on appeal. These defalcations alone are sufficient to preclude her from presenting the expert medical testimony necessary to her case. (§ 2034.300 [upon objection, trial court shall exclude expert opinion of any witness offered by a party who has unreasonably failed to identify expert witnesses in response to a demand for exchange].) Although Wang alternatively proposed to prove carbon monoxide exposure by introducing her medical records, the court correctly ruled those records could not be introduced without an evidentiary foundation—and Wang did not present any witnesses, expert or lay, who could provide one. (In re Cruse (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1500 [only properly authenticated medical records admissible].)
Wang also claims her failure to have witnesses available at trial resulted from "irregularities" in the court proceedings, namely, the trial commencing four days after the January 20, 2006, master trial date. She waived her right to object to this purported "irregularity" by failing to seek a continuance once she knew she could not get her witnesses to court on the date set for trial. (Garcia v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 633, 638; Kauffman v. De Mutiis (1948) 31 Cal.2d 429, 432-433.)
Having carefully reviewed the briefs, we conclude Wang has not demonstrated any grounds for reversal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
PARRILLI, Acting P.J.
POLLAK, J. --------------- Notes: Evidence Code section 402 states in part: "(a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article. (b) The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury . . . ."