BROADCASTS.com

b'

ANTI-SLAP MOTION FAILS BECAUSE PLAINTIFF NOT A PUBLIC FIGURE\\n\\nTien Dung Tran, the owner of two YouTube channels, appealed from an \\norder denying his special motion to strike plaintiffs Manh Van Truong \\n(Mike) and Meiji Truong\'s complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. \\nHe contends plaintiffs\' claims, which include defamation and intentional\\n and negligent infliction of emotional distress, arise from protected \\nactivity because the statements he allegedly made on YouTube came after \\nplaintiffs voluntarily put themselves in the public spotlight in the \\nlocal Vietnamese-American community.\\n\\nIn Manh Van Truong et al. v. Tien Dung Tran, G061703, California Court \\nof Appeals, August 29, 2023 the evidence did not demonstrate that the \\ntargeted comments were made in connection with an issue of public \\ninterest.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nPlaintiffs and defendant are members of the Vietnamese-American \\ncommunity in Orange County, California. Plaintiffs own and operate \\nseveral home improvement related businesses. Defendant owns two YouTube \\nchannels for which he creates video content. The complaint refers to \\ndefendant\'s YouTube content as primarily "Vietnamese community gossip."\\n\\nFollowing purported statements made by defendant about plaintiffs on his\\n YouTube channels, plaintiffs sued defendant for defamation. \\xa0The suit \\nsaid the remarks conveyed the following about Mike that, among other \\nthings he committed insurance fraud; was a communist supporter who \\nconspires with Vietnamese gangsters to attack America; among other \\nthings.\\n\\nNine days after plaintiffs filed an amended, more detailed, complaint, \\ndefendant filed a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the\\n anti-SLAPP statute. On the first occasion, the day before the 2020 \\npresidential election, Mike asked defendant and another highly viewed \\nYouTube channel to come film. He agreed to have the interview \\nlivestreamed and the recording posted on defendant\'s channel. The next \\nday, Mike requested defendant remove the recorded content; defendant did\\n so.\\n\\nFollowing a hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court issued an \\norder denying it in full. Specifically, defendant did not show the \\nalleged statements were made in connection with an issue of public \\ninterest.\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nDefendant asserts the trial court erroneously found the anti-SLAPP \\nstatute does not apply to plaintiffs\' claims. The court\'s consideration \\nof the anti-SLAPP motion was appropriate, notwithstanding the filing of \\nthe first amended complaint.\\n\\nLitigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process.\\n\\nthe moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the \\nchallenged allegations or claims arise from protected activity in which \\nthe defendant has engaged.\\nfor each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff \\nmust show the claim has at least minimal merit.\\n\\nIf the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will strike the \\nclaim.\\n\\nContending the trial court erred in concluding the alleged statements \\nfall outside the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, defendant invokes two \\ncategories of protected activity.\\xa0 Among the matters to consider are \\nwhether the subject of the speech or activity was a person or entity in \\nthe public eye or could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct\\n participants.\\xa0 Defendant contends plaintiffs were quasi-public figures \\nin positions of prominence who actively sought public attention.\\n\\nThe defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating the targeted \\nstatements fall within the scope of activity protected by the anti-SLAPP\\n statute, the trial court properly denied his motion.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nAccusing a self-made billionaire of insurance fraud and other criminal \\nconduct is, on its face, defamatory. The Anti-Slap statute protects the \\npublisher of such comments if the person accused is a protected \\nactivity. The attempt failed in the trial court and was affirmed by the \\nCourt of Appeal.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.