Nguyen v. Do


Filed 6/9/11 Nguyen v. Do CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TAM NGUYEN, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, v. TRON D. DO, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent.

H035772 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV097518)

I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises from a defamation action involving the parties' writings about each other in Vietnamese language newspapers. Appellant Tam Nguyen (Tam)[1] filed a complaint in which he alleged that respondent Tron D. Do (Tron) had defamed him in a paid editorial published in the Tin Viet News newspaper. Tron filed a cross-complaint alleging that Tam had defamed him in an article he wrote for the SaigonUSA News (SaigonUSA) newspaper. The parties do not dispute that for purposes of their defamation claims they are limited public figures.
After a 12-day court trial, the trial court found in Tron's favor on his cross-complaint and ruled against Tam on his complaint. The court determined that Tam's statements in his SaigonUSA article constituted libel per se because the statements could be reasonably construed to accuse Tron of charity fraud and of willfully associating with Vietnamese communist leaders. The court awarded Tron general damages of $10,000 and punitive damages of $50,000. However, the court determined that Tron's statements about Tam in his Tin Viet News paid editorial constituted constitutionally protected expressions of Tron's opinions and awarded Tam nothing on his complaint.
On appeal, Tam contends that the trial court erred in finding that Tam's statements in his SaigonUSA article constituted libel per se and in awarding Tron an excessive amount of general damages and punitive damages on the cross-complaint. Tam also contends that the trial court erred in finding that Tron's statements in his paid editorial in the Tien Viet News were not actionable and awarding Tam nothing on his complaint. For reasons that we will explain, we find the award of punitive damages cannot be sustained due to the insufficient evidence of Tam's financial condition, and we will strike the punitive damages award. We find no merit in Tam's other contentions and therefore we will affirm the judgment as modified.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Pleadings
Tam, a self-represented litigant,[2] filed a complaint against Tron and four other defendants, including Vien Thao Media, Tin Viet News, Tan Van Nguyen, and Thu Thi Tran,[3] on October 26, 2007. The complaint included a single cause of action for â€