Submitted: September 19, 2018
from the Court of Common Pleas AFFIRMED.
Charles E. Butler, Judge.
3rd day of January 2019, upon consideration of Plaintiff s
appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, it appears to the
Plaintiff appeals from a defense verdict in a nonjury trial
in the Court of Common Pleas. The Plaintiff complains of
several errors, but none of his arguments are meritorious and
the verdict will therefore be affirmed.
Plaintiff is Chunsheng Yu. The Defendant is Didatemai Corp.,
a small company owned principally by Rongyu
Yuan. The other witness to testify in the Court
of Common Pleas was Xu Li, a friend of Yuan. In addition to
being Yuan's friend, Li is also married to Yu's
daughter, Wenting Yu. Wenting Yu was a major customer of
that we have the players on the field, here was the intended
play. The business of Didatemai was to provide warehouse
services for sellers of electronics. Rongyu Yuan sought and
found warehouse space to rent in Wilmington. He needed
someone to manage the warehouse and Wenting Yu, his major
customer, suggested her father, the Plaintiff in this action.
After several email exchanges, it was agreed that Mr. Yu
would leave his home in Florida and come to Wilmington and
manage the warehouse. He would manage the warehouse at a
monthly salary of $4, 500 per month and after a year, they
would reconsider their arrangement.
Plaintiff moved to Wilmington, but his management of the
warehouse was shaky, at best. There were multiple problems
with order fulfillment and missing inventory. In Yuan's
view, these problems were serious enough to jeopardize
Didatemai's business plan and Yuan decided that Didatemai
needed to terminate its arrangement with Plaintiff. Yuan gave
Plaintiff a written notice of termination of the contract
with a final two weeks' pay.
Plaintiff sued claiming breach of contract and chose to
represent himself at trial. After hearing from Plaintiff, the
Court also heard testimony from Rongyu Yuan and Xu Li. While
there was no formalized employment contract, documents were
introduced reflecting the understandings of the parties.
After a full day of testimony, much of which required
translation into Mandarin for the benefit of Plaintiff, the
Court found that Plaintiff "breached the contract by not
performing his duties to an appropriate
standard." Therefore, the Court ruled, Didatemai was
justified in terminating its relationship with
Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas are appeals on the
record and the Court will not permit the introduction of new
evidence. Nor is an appeal the occasion to seek reargument on
the same issues raised and lost below: "In an appeal
from the Court of Common Pleas to the Superior Court, the
standard of review is whether there is legal error and
whether the factual findings made by the trial judge are
sufficiently supported by the record.. .
Plaintiff continues to press his claims pro se. His
arguments on appeal are almost incomprehensible. There is,
for example, a general complaint that the judge did not
provide his translator with enough time to
translate. But having read the full day's
transcript of the proceedings below, there is not the
slightest evidence that the judge was anything less than
solicitous and patient with Plaintiff and the translator.
There is a statement in his appeal papers that "I still
have evidence to ask for display in court, but the judge did
not allow me to complete the proof." The statement is
followed by several pages, single spaced, that reiterate all
of his arguments before the trial court, all of which were
their Answering Brief, Defendants give adequate and complete
responses to the best that can be gleaned from Plaintiffs
pleading here. First, the Court of Common Pleas' factual
findings were not clearly erroneous. Second, an interpreter
is not a matter of right in a civil case and the parties and
the Court complied with all accommodation requests of the
Mandarin translator. Finally, Plaintiff ...