Appeals court considers argument that jury verdict awarded duplicative damages and ignored trial stipulation on loan repayment

Attorney Greg Aceto, representing appellant Min Soo Kim, asked the Appeals Court to reverse or remit a large jury award and to address several post‑trial concerns: (1) the parties’ stipulation and trial exhibits that advances to Kim were to be repaid from the LLC or from Kim’s future distributions rather than directly from his person; (2) alleged duplicative damages across contract, fraud and fiduciary‑duty counts; and (3) asserted errors in the trial judge’s handling of overlapping claims.

Why it matters: The appeal raises whether the trial record and jury form permit duplicative recovery and how a pretrial or trial stipulation about repayment timing should affect enforcement and collection against an individual defendant.

Aceto told the panel that the trial record contained multiple written agreements and trial exhibits (trial exhibits 7, 15, 21 and 39 cited in argument) reflecting that personal loans and advances would be repaid from the LLC or from future profit distributions to Kim, and that the jury had a single question focused on when repayment would begin. He said the verdict numbers track the defense expert’s calculations of advances, and that several affirmative claims (breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract) produced awards that overlap with a principal damages calculation, producing duplicative recovery.

Aceto asked the court to address duplicative awards (for example, a $4.3 million principal award that arguably encompassed amounts later recovered again under contract and fiduciary counts) and to prevent an unintended windfall that would allow recovery more than once for the same loss. He also argued that representations made to the jury about how repayment would be handled should be enforced and not be used later to collect personally when the parties had repeatedly memorialized a different repayment approach.

Opposing counsel Doug Brooks for the appellees responded that the trial record and jury verdicts are what they are: the jury found contractual breach and awarded damages, and the judgment adopted the jury’s verdict; Brooks said the parties’ trial statements about timing did not operate as a limitation on personal liability and that the jury explicitly found breach and awarded damages amenable to collection under judgment procedures. Brooks noted that some arguments about duplication were not squarely raised below and that the verdict form did not allow the court to apportion particular dollar amounts to specific sub‑theories that might be duplicative.

The panel questioned counsel about the scope of fiduciary obligations under the operating agreement, the contents of the jury verdict slip, and whether the jury’s split awards (including awards to the LLC and to individual members) made reconciling the damages amounts and any duplication impossible without speculation. Counsel agreed the record contains multiple complex exhibits and calculations, and both sides pointed to limitations in how the jury responded to multi‑part questions.

The court thanked counsel and took the appeal under advisement; no decision was announced from the bench.

Ending: The panel recessed after taking the matter under advisement; no disposition announced at the hearing.