Nguyen v. Bui — Taking Over a Case Days Before Trial
Nguyen v. Bui, 146 Idaho 187, 191 P.3d 1107 (Ct. App. 2008)
Idaho Court of Appeals — Published Decision
Some cases give a lawyer months or years to prepare for trial.
This wasn't one of them.
I was engaged to represent Hoa K. Bui, Jocelyn N. Bui, and Mongo Grill, Inc. only a few days before trial.
By the time I entered the case, the pleadings had already been filed. The defendants' Answer—including the omission of the pleading of the defense of payment—had been prepared and filed before we were engaged.
The client had been pro se until they hired us. We inherited the case as it existed.
And trial was only days away.
Walking Into an Existing Case
Taking over a case immediately before trial is very different from preparing a case from the beginning.
The factual record already exists. Discovery decisions have already been made. Pleadings have already defined the parties' positions. Strategic choices have already been made by other lawyers. And there is very little time to decide what matters most.
A new lawyer does not get to start over.
You have to understand the existing record, identify the issues that will actually matter at trial, prepare the witnesses, understand the exhibits and pleadings, and develop a trial strategy—all while the trial date is approaching.
That was the situation in Nguyen v. Bui.
The dispute involved money that the plaintiff, Nguyen, contended was owed in connection with the parties' business dealings.
A central issue at trial became whether payments made by the defendants should be credited against the amount claimed by Nguyen.
The defense of payment was not something we created after entering the case. It was already contained in the defendants' Answer when we were retained.
We took the case that existed and tried it. We won it. Then the Judge changed his mind on a motion for reconsideration.
From Trial to Appeal
The case did not end in the trial court.
It eventually reached the Idaho Court of Appeals.
I personally argued the appeal for Hoa Bui, Jocelyn Bui, and Mongo Grill.
One of the significant appellate issues involved Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b), which addresses issues that are actually tried by the parties even when the pleadings may not perfectly frame those issues.
The Court of Appeals examined the evidence presented at trial, the existing pleadings, the payment defense, and whether issues had been tried by the express or implied consent of the parties.
The resulting published opinion was Nguyen v. Bui, 146 Idaho 187, 191 P.3d 1107 (Ct. App. 2008).
The Court affirmed portions of the judgment and reversed portions of it, resulting in a published decision addressing Idaho civil procedure and trial by consent.
What I Remember About This Case
What stands out to me about Nguyen is not simply that it became a reported appellate decision.
It is how the case began for us.
We didn't have a year to prepare it.
We didn't draft the original Answer.
We didn't select the defenses that had already been pleaded.
We were hired only a few days before trial and had to get ready to try the case that was already there.
We put together a theme and a case in days and we won this case. Then that victory was ripped away.
That experience taught me something I have carried into many cases since: when time is short, a trial lawyer has to distinguish very quickly between what is merely in the file and what actually matters.
You cannot master every piece of paper equally.
You have to identify the controlling facts, understand the burdens of proof, determine what the witnesses can actually establish, know the important exhibits, understand the existing pleadings, and build the clearest case possible from the record you have inherited.
Then you have to try it.
The Appellate Lesson
The appeal also reinforced something that trial lawyers sometimes learn the hard way: appellate issues are often created long before anyone files a notice of appeal.
They are created in pleadings.
They are created by objections—or the absence of objections.
They are created by the evidence the parties introduce.
And they are created by what actually happens in the courtroom.
Rule 15(b) exists at that intersection between pleading and trial reality.
The published Nguyen decision became part of Idaho law addressing when an issue may be treated as having been tried by consent despite questions about how that issue was framed in the pleadings.
For a lawyer who had entered the case only days before trial, there was an additional lesson in seeing how decisions made before our involvement, decisions made during trial, and the trial record itself ultimately became the subject of a reported appellate decision.
Part of the Record
Nguyen was one of my earlier appellate arguments.
By that point in my career, I had already begun to understand that trying cases and handling appeals are not separate disciplines.
What happens at trial creates the appellate record.
And understanding appellate law makes you a better trial lawyer because it forces you to think not only about what argument you want to make today, but what the record will say about that argument years later.
More than eighteen years later, I still remember Nguyen as the case we took only days before trial.
We inherited the pleadings. We inherited the record. We inherited the approaching trial date.
Our job was to get ready and advocate for the clients.
We did.
And the case ultimately became part of Idaho's reported appellate law.
Case: Nguyen v. Bui
Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
Citation: 146 Idaho 187, 191 P.3d 1107 (Ct. App. 2008)
Clients: Hoa K. Bui, Jocelyn N. Bui, and Mongo Grill, Inc.
Trial Counsel: William L. Smith
Appellate Oral Argument: William L. Smith
Key Issue: Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) and trial of issues by consent
Disposition: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
William L. “Bill” Smith is an Idaho trial lawyer and founding partner of Smith Horras, P.A. His professional record includes civil jury trials, bench trials, and oral arguments before the Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho Court of Appeals.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends upon its own facts, evidence, law, and circumstances.