Filed 11/18/20 Dow v. Mousa CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR TONY DOW et al., B293094 (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Respondents, Super. Ct. No. BC606901) v. MAISSAA MOUSA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ruth Ann Kwan, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Vip Bhola and Vip Bhola for Defendant and Appellant. Morris & Stone and Aaron P. Morris for Plaintiffs and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Appellant Maissaa Mousa told others that respondent Tony Dow had abused her during a business trip by, inter alia, holding her as a prisoner, providing her insufficient food, and sexually harassing her. Dow and his company, respondent International Patients Network (IPN), sued appellant for defamation. Following trial, a jury found for respondents and awarded them over $130,000 in damages. On appeal, appellant raises numerous claims. As discussed below, her claims are either unpreserved, undeveloped, meritless, or some combination of the above. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND A. The Parties, Their Prior Lawsuits, and Respondents’ Defamation Action Dow is the president and chief executive officer of IPN, a medical-tourism company, which provides international medical referrals and placement services for medical treatment. Appellant immigrated with her family to the United States from Syria in 2009, and was referred to Dow by Ikhlas Akra,1 a mutual friend, after appellant had difficulty finding meaningful employment. In late 2012, Dow and appellant agreed that she would travel to Beirut, Lebanon, where Dow was then on business, so he could 1 Because multiple members of the Akra family were involved in this case, we refer to them by the first names. 2 evaluate her qualifications to serve as his assistant. Appellant travelled to Beirut and spent three weeks at Dow’s apartment there. Appellant then travelled to France, where she was to await Dow’s arrival. However, after spending a week in Paris, she decided to return to the United States before Dow arrived. After appellant’s departure, a financial dispute arose between the parties, and finally, on January 5, 2015, IPN sued appellant, seeking $4,000 in reimbursements. In February 2015, appellant responded with a cross-complaint, alleging Dow had subjected her to all manner of abuse and sexual misconduct while she was staying at his Beirut apartment. Less than a year later, on January 13, 2016, respondents filed this defamation action against appellant, and the matter proceeded to trial. B. The Trial 1. Respondents’ Case At trial, respondents claimed appellant had defamed them by telling others that during her trip to Lebanon, Dow sexually harassed her (including by remaining nude at all times), held her as a prisoner (including by holding her passport), and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals