Hoang v. Nguyen CA1/5

Filed 10/14/22 Hoang v. Nguyen CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CHI HOANG, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165819 v. VU NGUYEN, (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 16-CV-300868) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Vu Nguyen, appearing in propia persona, appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Chi Hoang following a bench trial.2 Hoang sued Nguyen alleging, among other claims, fraud. She alleged Nguyen falsely promised her that the two of them would each own 50 percent of La Belle Cosmeceuticals, Inc. (LBC), a company that developed and sold a facial cream. Hoang further alleged that Nguyen wrongfully closed the company without her consent, took its valuable inventory, and gave Hoang nothing for her work or her ownership interest. Hoang also sought to partition real

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. This matter was transferred by California Supreme Court order on 2

August 9, 2022, from the Sixth Appellate District to the First Appellate District.

1

property in San Jose, which she and Nguyen purchased as cotenants. The trial court issued a statement of decision finding Hoang’s testimony credible and Nguyen’s testimony “incoherent, inconsistent with and unsupported by other credible evidence.” The trial court further found the following true: Hoang’s version of the facts regarding Hoang and Nguyen’s personal and business relationships; Nguyen promised that she owned 50 percent of LBC; he did not intend to perform the promise when he made it; he intended for her to rely on his promise; she reasonably relied upon the promise; Nguyen did not perform as promised; and Hoang was harmed due to her reliance on Nguyen’s promise. The court determined that Hoang was entitled to $1,400,000 for her half of the value of the LBC inventory Nguyen stole and punitive damages of $420,000. In addition, the court found that Nguyen did not compensate Hoang for her 50-percent share of the San Jose property. The court appointed a receiver to sell the property, pay the mortgage, and equally divide the remaining proceeds, with Nguyen’s share of the proceeds being used to satisfy the damages awarded to Hoang on her fraud claim. “ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversable error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error, and to do so, he or she “must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citation to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.]