Facts

Plaintiff Leiu Minh Quang is a law office manager at the Law Offices of Dinh Tranh, which services the Vietnamese community in San Diego. Defendant Neil Tran owns Nang Moi Magazine, a local Vietnamese advertising magazine, which publishes some articles. Plaintiff Quang placed advertising for his employer in the magazine for a period of time, then pulled the ads. Very shortly after the advertising was withdrawn, the defendant published statements saying that the plaintiff had a practice of luring young girls to work in the law office and would then have sex with them. In some cases, he claimed, they got pregnant, but were sent out of state to have their babies to cover up his wrongdoing.

Four articles were found between July and November of 2002, but the defendant admitted to publishing many more.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed the statements were false and that they were published by the defendant in retaliation for withdrawing advertising and/or to extort a return of advertising revenue. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant was motivated by a belief that the plaintiff was influenced by his competitors and/or other persons whom the defendant believed were his enemies. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant ran an unlicensed legal referral business and was motivated by a desire to injure the reputation of the plaintiff's offices, so that he could direct business to his own attorneys.

In response to the defendant's claim that the articles did not identify the plaintiff, the testimony of lay witnesses and the plaintiff's expert established that the words were understood to be about him, that giving the words an everyday meaning made no sense, and that the plaintiff's name was emphasized in the articles by capitalizing the same.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant claimed that there was deniability as to whether the publications identified the plaintiff. The defendant did not use his full name, but used parts of it. These words have independent meaning in Vietnamese. The defendant, on the stand, attempted to argue that the allegations were either true or based on a credible rumor. Finally, the defendant claimed there was no damage to the plaintiff.

Settlement Discussions

This case was mediated before Thomas Grady, Esq. but did not settle. The plaintiff initially demanded retraction plus $100,000. The defendant offered a qualified retraction, subject to conditions, and made it clear he would pay no money.

Injuries

Injury to reputation and emotional distress.

Result

Damages for libel: $50,000; damages for emotional distress: $200,000; punitive damages: $100,000.

Other Information

The defense filed an Anti-SLAPP motion, contending that the plaintiff was a public figure because he placed himself in law office ads, and that he was a visible figure in the community. The defense also claimed he was a member of various community groups intent on doing the defendant harm. The defense also took the position that the same was a matter of public concern. Motion denied by Judge William H. Nevitt. The defense appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals. The Court's ruling was unanimously affirmed.

Deliberation

one day

Poll

12-0 (liability), 10-2 (damages)

Length

4.5 days