FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 10 90 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 05 85 -PCH AUTOCHINA LIMITED, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us KENNET H HUANG, a.k .a. Huan g J ia n- Hua , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re MAR CUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andMILLS, Sen io r Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. PER CURI AM:
Honora ble Richard Mills, Senior United States District J udg e for the Central District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

designation.Pl ai nt iff -ap pe ll an t Au to ch in a Lim it ed(“ Aut oc hi na ”) ap pe al s fr om a jury ve rd ic t i n fa vo r of

de fen da nt -ap pe ll ee Ken ne th Huan g (“ Hua ng ”). Aut oc hi na co nt en ds on ap pe al th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinnu m ero us ev id en ti ary ru li ng s du rin g t he co ur se of t ria l.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on th e ad m is si bi li ty of ev id en ce fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d e vi de nt ia ry rul in gs wil l b e o ve rtu rn edon ly if th e m ov in g pa rty est ab li sh es th atth e ru li ng res ul te d i n a‘ subs ta nt ia l p reju di ci al effe ct .’ Whe n ap pl y in g a n abu se of d is cret io n s ta nd ard , we m us t af firm un le ss we at l eas t de te rm in e th atth e d is tri ctco urt h as m ad e a ‘clea r erro r of jud gm en t,’ or h as ap pl ie d a n i nc orrectleg al st an da rd .” Pia m baCo rte s v . Am . Airl in es , Inc ., 17 7 F.3 d 1 27 2, 1 30 5- 06 (11 thCir . 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . W e wil l n otrev ers e anerro ne ou s ev id en ti ary ru li ng if t he res ul ti ng erro r was harm le ss . See Un it edSta te s v . Dick ers on , 24 8 F .3d10 36 , 10 48 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). “ W e fi ndanerro r ha rm le ss wher e th e p ur po rte d e rro r ha d n o s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n t he ou tc om e an d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce u ni nf

ect edby errorsupp orts th e ve rd ic t.” Id . Aut oc hi naass ert s t ha t the di st ric t ju dg e ab us edhi s d is cret io n wh enhe al lo wedin to ev id en ce twelv e al le ge d h ears ay st at em en ts , tes ti m on y

reg ard in g ot he r la wsu it s, an d the lay tes ti m on y of Hu an g re ga rd in g h is un de rs ta nd in g o f 2Ch in es e la w.

Bas edup onou r car efu l re vi ew of th e rec or d, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct jud ge di d n otab us e h is di sc ret io n i n ru li ng on th e ev id en ti ary is su es rai se d i n t hi s ap pe al . Eve n i f we d et erm in edth atth e d is tri ctjud ge ha d abu se d h is di sc ret io n, we wou ldst il l af

firm th e jury verd ic t, b ecau se th e ev id en ce ad du cedat t ria l was ov erwh el m in gl y

infav orof Hu an g. Au to ch in a is un ab le to de m on st rat e th atth e di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng s re su lt edina subs ta nt ia l p reju di ci al effe ct . AFFIRMED.

3