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.
ZALMA OPINION
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.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/ins
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; https://lnkd.in/gKCTg53
Insured Must Give Prompt Notice of Loss
Post 5256
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gBXRbKXD, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g4DKfUDz and at https://lnkd.in/g65V_RQ7 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Once The Insured Knows There is Damage It is Obligated to Report the Loss to the Insurer
In Greater St. Stephen Ministries, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, No. 24-cv-3130 (AS), United States District Court, S.D. New York (January 2, 2026) resolved a case brought by a church against an insurance company for denying coverage after Hurricane Ida. After discovery, the insurance company moved for summary judgment because it claimed the insured breached a material condition of the policy.
BACKGROUND
Greater St. Stephen Ministries, Inc., a church located in Louisiana, owned property that suffered damage from Hurricane Ida on August 29, 2021. The property was insured under a policy with Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, which required the insured to provide “prompt notice” of any loss or damage, ...
Insured Must Give Prompt Notice of Loss
Post 5256
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gBXRbKXD, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g4DKfUDz and at https://lnkd.in/g65V_RQ7 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Once The Insured Knows There is Damage It is Obligated to Report the Loss to the Insurer
In Greater St. Stephen Ministries, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, No. 24-cv-3130 (AS), United States District Court, S.D. New York (January 2, 2026) resolved a case brought by a church against an insurance company for denying coverage after Hurricane Ida. After discovery, the insurance company moved for summary judgment because it claimed the insured breached a material condition of the policy.
BACKGROUND
Greater St. Stephen Ministries, Inc., a church located in Louisiana, owned property that suffered damage from Hurricane Ida on August 29, 2021. The property was insured under a policy with Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, which required the insured to provide “prompt notice” of any loss or damage, ...
New Trial Because Jury Used Policy That Provides No Coverage to Assess Damages
Post 5255
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/drG3xH2R, see the video at https://lnkd.in/d6p8e-9p and at https://lnkd.in/dgPsQ3Sn, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc. v. Houligan’s Pub & Club, Inc., and Ormond Wine Company, LLC, Nos. 5D2024-2352, 5D2024-2458, Florida Court of Appeals (January 2, 2026) the Court of Appeals was faced with a case of first impression that involved damages from a hurricane that hit the East Coast of Florida almost a decade ago and the extent to which an insurance broker is responsible for paying for such damages.
The jury entered a verdict in favor of the insurance broker on the insured’s claim that it was negligent in failing to procure insurance, but it found in favor of the insured on claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation.
The insurance broker does not contest it breached its duties on these two claims, only ...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
