It’s Not Nice to Accuse a Person of Insurance Fraud

ANTI-SLAPPPhoto byBarry Zalma

ANTI-SLAP MOTION FAILS BECAUSE PLAINTIFF NOT A PUBLIC FIGURE

Barry Zalma

Sep 5, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGb7V9cZ and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gUdSWZBE and at https://lnkd.in/gr2CNv2j and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4600 posts.

Tien Dung Tran, the owner of two YouTube channels, appealed from an
order denying his special motion to strike plaintiffs Manh Van Truong
(Mike) and Meiji Truong’s complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute.
He contends plaintiffs’ claims, which include defamation and intentional
and negligent infliction of emotional distress, arise from protected
activity because the statements he allegedly made on YouTube came after
plaintiffs voluntarily put themselves in the public spotlight in the
local Vietnamese-American community.

In Manh Van Truong et al. v. Tien Dung Tran, G061703, California
Court of Appeals, August 29, 2023 the evidence did not demonstrate that
the targeted comments were made in connection with an issue of public
interest.

FACTS

Plaintiffs and defendant are members of the Vietnamese-American
community in Orange County, California. Plaintiffs own and operate
several home improvement related businesses. Defendant owns two YouTube
channels for which he creates video content. The complaint refers to
defendant’s YouTube content as primarily “Vietnamese community gossip.”

Following purported statements made by defendant about plaintiffs on
his YouTube channels, plaintiffs sued defendant for defamation. The suit
said the remarks conveyed the following about Mike that, among other
things he committed insurance fraud; was a communist supporter who
conspires with Vietnamese gangsters to attack America; among other
things.

Nine days after plaintiffs filed an amended, more detailed,
complaint, defendant filed a special motion to strike the complaint
pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. On the first occasion, the day
before the 2020 presidential election, Mike asked defendant and another
highly viewed YouTube channel to come film. He agreed to have the
interview livestreamed and the recording posted on defendant’s channel.
The next day, Mike requested defendant remove the recorded content;
defendant did so.

Following a hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court issued
an order denying it in full. Specifically, defendant did not show the
alleged statements were made in connection with an issue of public
interest.

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts the trial court erroneously found the anti-SLAPP
statute does not apply to plaintiffs’ claims. The court’s consideration
of the anti-SLAPP motion was appropriate, notwithstanding the filing of
the first amended complaint.

Litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process.

1. the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the
challenged allegations or claims arise from protected activity in which
the defendant has engaged.

2. for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has at least minimal merit.

If the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will strike the claim.

Contending the trial court erred in concluding the alleged statements
fall outside the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, defendant invokes two
categories of protected activity. Among the matters to consider are
whether the subject of the speech or activity was a person or entity in
the public eye or could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct
participants. Defendant contends plaintiffs were quasi-public figures
in positions of prominence who actively sought public attention.

The defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating the targeted
statements fall within the scope of activity protected by the anti-SLAPP
statute, the trial court properly denied his motion.

Accusing a self-made billionaire of insurance fraud and other
criminal conduct is, on its face, defamatory. The Anti-Slap statute
protects the publisher of such comments if the person accused is a
protected activity. The attempt failed in the trial court and was
affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.