Filed 1/11/21; Certified for Publication 2/1/21 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX KIEU HOANG, 2d Civil No. B302608 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2018- Plaintiff and Respondent, 00507910-CU-DF-VTA) (Ventura County) v. PHONG MINH TRAN, Defendant and Appellant. Phong Minh Tran appeals from an order denying his special motion to strike respondent Kieu Hoang’s complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) 1 Respondent sued appellant for defamation and other torts. Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously determined that he had failed to satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, i.e., he had not made a threshold showing that respondent’s action arose from protected activity in connection with an issue of public interest. Appellant Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to 1 the Code of Civil Procedure. further contends that the trial court erroneously determined that respondent had satisfied the statute’s second prong, i.e., respondent had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. Therefore, appellant argues that the trial court should have granted his anti-SLAPP motion and struck respondent’s complaint. We agree and reverse. Factual and Procedural Background In May 2018 respondent filed a first amended complaint (the complaint) against appellant, BBC Global News and related entities (BBC), and Nguyen Huy. The complaint alleged three causes of action against all defendants. The first was for defamation. The second was for a violation of the common law right of publicity. It alleged that defendants’ “[d]efamatory [s]tatements . . . are calculated falsehoods . . . and . . . a cover-up or subterfuge for the unauthorized commercial appropriation of [respondent’s] name, image and identity . . . .” The third cause of action was for civil conspiracy. It alleged, “Defendants acted in concert and came to a mutual understanding . . . to accomplish a common and unlawful plan to defame [respondent] and misappropriate his name, image, likeness, and identity for their advantage . . . .” Respondent claimed that, because of appellant’s “false and defamatory statements about him,” his “estimated net worth” had decreased by approximately $1 billion. He “suffered lost business opportunities, including . . . a cancelled $6 billion . . . transaction for a sale of [his] shares of Shanghai RAAS stock.” 2 2Plaintiffs in SLAPP suits “‘typically ask for damages which would be ruinous to the defendants.[’]” (Wilbanks v. Wolk (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 883, 891.) 2 The complaint stated: “[Respondent] is a remarkable success story. He was born in Vietnam. He immigrated with his family to the United States in 1975, as the last of the American troops were pulling out of the country. He began work in the U.S. as a technician, earning $1.25 per hour. By 2015, [he] was a self-made billionaire, with a net worth of $3.8 billion, ranking No. 149 on the Forbes 400 list.” Appellant cofounded and is the second largest shareholder of Shanghai RAAS, “the largest producer of human blood derived products ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals