California Court of Appeal Sep 28, 2015 No. D066364Unpublished
Filed 9/28/15 Tran v. Rogers CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NEIL TRAN, D066364
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00062758)
MICHAEL ROGERS et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Randa Trapp, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil Tran, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lambert & Rogers and Michael Rogers, for Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
This is Neil Tran's fourth appeal in a series of lawsuits stemming from statements
Tran made about Lieu Minh Quang1 in Tran's publication, Nang Moi, in 2002.2 In this
case, Tran sued Quang, Michael Rogers (Quang's former attorney), Doan Dung, Nguoi
Viet Today News, and Tri T. Nguyen, M.D. for allegedly conspiring to continue the trial
in Tran's case against Quang by falsely representing that Quang was ill and to prevent
Tran from presenting his case at trial. Tran appeals a judgment dismissing Rogers, Nguoi
Viet Today News, and Dung (collectively Respondents) after the court sustained their
demurrer to his first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend. The trial court
sustained the demurrer on three grounds: (1) the conduct alleged is absolutely privileged
under Civil Code3 section 47, subdivision (b); (2) the FAC is an improper collateral
attack on a previous judgment; and (3) the FAC fails to allege a conspiracy claim.
1 Quang was sued in this case, and is sometimes referred to, as Quang Minh Lieu. Respondents inform us this is based on linguistic differences between English and Vietnamese regarding placement of the surname. For consistency, we refer to this individual as Quang.
2 Tran was the appellant in the following matters arising from the dispute with Quang: Quang v. Tran (Aug. 23, 2004, D041992) [nonpub. opn.]) affirmed an order denying Tran's special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16); Quang v. Tran (Oct. 10, 2007, D048346) [nonpub. opn.]) affirmed judgment for Quang; and Tran v. Quang et al. (Sept. 18, 2013, D064038), dismissed as untimely. Tran was also the appellant in a similar case, Dinh v. Tran (Sept. 27, 2004, D042139) [nonpub. opn.]) affirmed an order denying Tran's special motion to strike under the anti- SLAPP statute regarding statements in Nang Moi.
3 All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise specified.
2
On appeal, Tran contends the litigation privilege should not apply to this case and
this action does not constitute an improper collateral attack on a previous judgment. He
also contends the court erred in sustaining the demurrer without granting him leave to
amend. We conclude there is no merit to these contentions and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the first lawsuit, Quang v. Tran, supra, D048346, Quang obtained a money
judgment against Tran for libel, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive
damages based on false statements Tran published in Nang Moi about Quang. We
affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion.
In the second lawsuit, Tran v. Quang, supra, D064038, Tran sued Quang, Dung,
Nguoi Viet Today News, and other parties, for intentional infliction of emotional distress
and defamation. After a jury trial, Quang, Dung, and Nguoi Viet Today News obtained a
defense judgment against Tran. Tran unsuccessfully moved for a new trial and failed to
timely appeal the judgment.
In this third lawsuit, Tran sued Respondents for conspiracy, fraud, unfair business
practice, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.4 Tran's FAC
alleges Respondents conspired with Tran's former attorney during the Tran v. Quang,
supra, D064038 case: (1) to induce the court to continue the trial for three months by
allegedly falsely representing Quang suffered a heart attack and was too ill to proceed
4 Tran amended his original complaint prior to service. Therefore, the FAC is the operative complaint.
3
with trial as scheduled; (2) to deny Tran's request for Quang to produce medical records;
(3) to use Tran's translator for Quang during trial without reimbursing Tran; and (4) to
prevent Tran from calling witnesses (allegedly falsely representing a witness had been
murdered) and presenting evidence of damage to his reputation.5 Tran contends the
Respondents made false representations and conspired to deny him the opportunity to
fairly present his defamation case.
Respondents demurred to the FAC contending its allegations are barred by section
47, subdivision (b)'s litigation privilege and by section 1714.10's procedural requirements
for filing a civil conspiracy action against an attorney. Additionally, Respondents
contended this lawsuit is an impermissible counterattack on the prior adverse judgment
against Tran. In opposition, Tran argued section 47, subdivision (b) is inapplicable to his
allegations and requested leave to amend.
The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the grounds the FAC
concerned absolutely privileged conduct under section 47, subdivision (b), it constitutes
an improper collateral attack on a previous judgment, and it fails to allege a conspiracy
claim because it does not allege a wrongful act to support a conspiracy. The court denied
leave to amend stating it did not appear Tran could state a cause of action.
5 Tran apparently has a separate lawsuit pending against his former attorney arising from the Tran v. Quang case. (Tran v. Kanter (Super. Ct. San Diego County, 2013, No. 37-2013-0053420-CU-PN-CTL).)
4
DISCUSSION
I
Demurrer
"A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. [Citation.] Therefore, we
review the [FAC] de novo to determine whether it contains sufficient facts to state a
cause of action. [Citation.] 'We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts
properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' " (Grinzi
v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 78; see Flannery v. VW Credit,
Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 606, 613.)
We conclude the court properly sustained Respondents' demurrer because all of
Tran's allegations and causes of action concern absolutely privileged conduct. "The
litigation privilege, codified at … section 47, subdivision (b), provides that a 'publication
or broadcast' made as part of a 'judicial proceeding' is privileged. This privilege is
absolute in nature, applying 'to all publications, irrespective of their maliciousness.'
[Citation.] … The privilege 'is not limited to statements made during a trial or other
proceedings, but may extend to steps taken prior thereto, or afterwards.' " (Action
Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241.) The
purpose of the litigation privilege is to afford " 'the utmost freedom of access to the courts
without fear of being harassed subsequently by derivative tort actions.' " (Ibid.)
" '[T]he privilege is "an 'absolute' privilege, and it bars all tort causes of action
except a claim of malicious prosecution." [Citation.] The litigation privilege has been
5
applied in "numerous cases" involving "fraudulent communication or perjured
Tran's allegations all concern communications during the Tran v. Quang, supra,
D064038 judicial proceeding. Tran alleges Respondents and Tran's former attorney
made statements to the court concerning Quang's health and the availability of witnesses.
Tran alleges Rogers used Tran's translator for Quang during trial. Tran alleges the
Respondents, along with Tran's former attorney, "acted in concert … to conclude the case
after the first day of trial," which he alleges prevented him from presenting evidence of
damage. Each of these communicative acts made during the course of litigation falls
within section 47, subdivision (b)'s purview.
Tran contends the litigation privilege should not apply in this case because he
believes the conduct alleged amounts to perjury. It is true the litigation privilege does not
apply to prevent criminal prosecution for perjury or subornation of perjury. (Action
Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1246.) However, it
is well established the litigation privilege applies to civil actions based on perjury or other
fraudulent communications. (Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 322.) The
Supreme Court has explained, " ' "[t]he resulting lack of any really effective civil remedy
against perjurers is simply part of the price that is paid for witnesses who are free from
6
intimidation by the possibility of civil liability for what they say." ' " (Jacob B. v. County
of Shasta (2007) 40 Cal.4th 948, 956.)6
Additionally, the FAC is an impermissible collateral attack on the adverse
judgment Tran received in his prior lawsuit. Although Tran does not explicitly seek to
reverse or set aside that judgment, he seeks damages for fraud he alleges Respondents
committed during trial. Even assuming Tran's allegations to be true, such an attack on
intrinsic fraud by way of a subsequent lawsuit is improper. (Mullen v. Dep't of Real
Estate (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 295, 301 ["[W]here the fraud was committed within the
trial there can be no relief. '[I]t is settled beyond controversy that a decree will not be
vacated merely because it was obtained by forged documents or perjured testimony.' "].)
Therefore, Tran's causes of action are barred and the trial court correctly sustained the
demurrer to the FAC.
II
Leave to Amend
Tran also contends the court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend.
"The trial court exercises its discretion in declining to grant leave to amend. [Citation.]
If it is reasonably possible the pleading can be cured by amendment, the trial court abuses
its discretion by not granting leave to amend." (Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp.
6 Tran's reliance on Flatley v. Mauro, supra, 39 Cal.4th 299 is misplaced. In that case, the court discussed the litigation privilege, recognizing its broad application even to fraudulent or perjured statements. (Id. at p. 322.) It held, however, the anti-SLAPP statute, which is substantively different from section 47, did not apply to criminal extortion because such conduct is not constitutionally protected speech. (Id. at pp. 328, 333.) 7
(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 78.) Tran "has the burden of proving the possibility of cure
by amendment." (Ibid.)
In opposing Respondents' demurer, Tran claimed he could plead more facts about
the motivations for Respondents' actions, but did not specify how such facts would cure
the pleading defects or overcome the litigation privilege or the bar against a collateral
attack on a prior judgment.
Tran contends we should grant leave to amend because he is representing himself.
Tran also contends because he is not an attorney he should have an opportunity on
remand to file a petition under section 1714.10 to permit him to state a claim for civil
conspiracy against attorney Rogers, who properly raised this failure as a defense in
Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 815.) A self-represented litigant
must " 'be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater
consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]' [Citation.] Thus, as is the
case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of procedure." (Nwosu v.
Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) Tran has not met his burden of demonstrating
how he could cure the FAC's fatal deficiencies or how he could avoid the application of
section 1714.10. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tran
leave to amend.
8
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
PRAGER, J.*
* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the absolute litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), and constituted an improper collateral attack on a prior judgment.
Issues
Whether the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) bars the plaintiff's claims.
Whether the complaint constitutes an improper collateral attack on a previous judgment.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The litigation privilege, codified at … section 47, subdivision (b), provides that a 'publication or broadcast' made as part of a 'judicial proceeding' is privileged. This privilege is absolute in nature”
“it is well established the litigation privilege applies to civil actions based on perjury or other fraudulent communications.”
“the FAC is an impermissible collateral attack on the adverse judgment Tran received in his prior lawsuit.”