What is This Case About?
This case is about defamation. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that Daniel Tran, a YouTuber from California along with Tran Thi Hoa a resident of Texas defamed Minh Tu, a YouTuber who resides in Vietnam, and Quynh Nguyen, a YouTuber who resides in Texas during his YouTube live streams. The location of where the parties live will become the central point of argument which is why we have included where they live.
The Defamation Allegations
The defamation claim against Daniel Tran suggests that he conspired with others to elevate false or damaging statements about the plaintiffs, which allegedly hurt their reputation or credibility. In legal terms, defamation involves making statements that are not only untrue but also harmful, potentially affecting a person’s or a business’s ability to maintain a good image or conduct business effectively.
In this case, the plaintiffs argue that Tran’s statements were deliberately misleading or damaging enough to impact their reputation, which could have financial or social consequences. They are seeking damages for this harm, meaning they want compensation for any losses they believe resulted from the negative effects of these statements.
What Exactly Does the Lawsuit Allege that Mr. Tran and Ms. Hoa did?
In the case, the conspiracy claim alleges that Daniel used his YouTube status to repeat and elevate the claims made by Ms. Hoa regarding $6,000.00 worth of payments made to Minh Tu. causing harm to the plaintiffs. “Conspiracy” in legal terms means that two or more people agreed to do something illegal or wrongful, and then took steps to make that plan happen.
The plaintiffs argue that Tran and Ms. Hoa may have intentionally collaborated in a way that violated the plaintiffs’ rights, which could include actions like sharing confidential information, misleading others, or making decisions that unfairly benefitted themselves while hurting the plaintiffs. By alleging conspiracy, the plaintiffs are trying to show that Tran and Ms. Hoa’s combined actions caused more harm than if they had acted separately. The plaintiffs seek damages for this harm and possibly other legal measures to address the alleged conspiracy.
Let the Fundraising Begin...
In order for this lawsuit to be filed, Quynh had to do several things. She 1) Had to raise enough money for a lawfirm to take the case, 2) She had to find someone who would represent Tu, and 3) Find someone to translate not only Daniel Tran’s videos, but videos of other YouTubers who could support Quynh’s claims. Step 1 was the easiest. Quynh has a large following so in her role as a public figure and activist, she believed that her followers would donate the money needed to file the lawsuit. And they did in fact donate. To date, over $80,000.00 has been deposited into the “trust fund” that is used to pay for the case. Step 2 was also easy. Find someone who could represent Tu in court by signing a “Power of Attorney” form that would allow that person to represent Tu in the Texas court if Tu himself could not fly to the U.S. Tammy Zitun was Tu’s initial power of attorney, but she rescinded that right as she felt something wasn’t quite right. Tracy Glass then stepped in to represent Tu as his Power of Attorney. Tracy recently rescinded her POA, because she also felt “something wasn’t right”.
The Lawsuit is Filed in Texas
On February 12th, 2024, Case 2024-09338 Le Thanh Minh Tu, a/k/a Minh Tu, and Hguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, a/k/a Quynh Nguyen VS. Nguyen Tien Dung, a/k/a Tien Dung Trans; and Tran Thi Hue, a/k/a Tran Thi Hoa was filed in Harris County Texas. At this point court records show that Quynh’s defense team spent a considerable amount of time trying to serve Daniel Tran. In the U.S. a person being sued must be “served” or given a copy of the lawsuit personally. However, Daniel Tran could not be located, so Quynh’s team used a process known as “Substituted Service” on May 20th, 2024. This officially put Daniel Tran on notice that a lawsuit had been filed against him.
What Quynh and Tu Are Asking The Court To Do
Quynh and Tu are seeking specific damages from Daniel Tran, which typically include financial compensation for the losses they believe his actions caused. These damages may involve:
- **Compensatory Damages**: This would cover the actual financial losses the plaintiffs claim to have suffered due to Tran’s actions, like lost business revenue or costs related to remedying harm caused.
- **Punitive Damages**: These are additional amounts intended to punish Tran for any alleged intentional wrongdoing, acting as a deterrent against future misconduct. ($1,000,000.00)
- **Legal Fees**: The plaintiffs may also be requesting coverage for their legal costs associated with bringing the case.
- **Injunctive Relief**: This is a non-monetary request, which could include orders preventing Tran from certain actions in the future, especially if his actions are believed to have caused ongoing harm
Daniel Tran Responds
On June 20th, 2024, Daniel Tran responded to the court, and in short is asking the court to dismiss because the Texas court does not have jurisdiction over Daniel Tran who resides in California. Here is a legal summary of his argument:
In this legal argument, the defendants are addressing whether the Texas court can rightfully claim “personal jurisdiction” over Daniel Tran, who resides in California, not Texas. For a court to have this jurisdiction, Tran must have “minimum contacts” with Texas, meaning he has to have engaged with the state in a way that would make it fair to involve him in a lawsuit there.
The concept of “minimum contacts” comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which set a standard that a person must have a significant connection to the state, making it reasonable for them to anticipate being called to court there. This legal standard means the defendant should have purposely taken advantage of the benefits of the state, such as conducting business or activities within it, so the state’s court can protect its laws and people.
There are two types of jurisdiction the court might consider:
General Jurisdiction: This applies if Tran has “continuous and systematic” contacts with Texas, essentially meaning he regularly engages with the state. However, because Tran lives in California, does not own property in Texas, and is not alleged to do business there, the plaintiffs argue that general jurisdiction does not apply here.
Specific Jurisdiction: This would apply if the legal issues in the case specifically relate to actions Tran took in Texas, but that is not addressed in this section.
Since Tran’s contacts with Texas appear minimal, the defendants argue that it would violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” to involve him in a Texas court case, as he could not have reasonably expected to face a Texas court over his actions.
Quynh Goes "Scorched Earth" On Her Followers
On its merit, we at FIA believe that the lawsuit against Daniel Tran was justified. However, the innocence or guilt needs to be decided by the court, and NOT the court of public opinion. Although we feel the initial lawsuit was justified, we also believe it has been tainted and tarnished. Once a lawsuit is filed, every attorney in the U.S. will tell you to be quiet about it until the case is resolved. The fear of the attorney would be that anything you say and do until the case is heard can and will be used by the “other side”. Quynh either did not get this warning, or she just completely decided to ignore it because of pride and (or) her ego. Quynh unleased a flurry of insults, accusations, and intolerable comments on some people who were once her most loyal followers. The heart of the issue seems to be where did the money go?
Where Did The Money Go?
We at FIA have found that the money raised was used by the law firm. It did not go into Quynh’s pocket as many have suggested. The problem for Quynh is that she failed to keep her followers properly updated or at best a summary of the legal expenses. It is not “attorney client privilege” to say “We raised, $50,000 to date, but the attorney costs have been 30 hours X $600.00 this month, which have included court filings, briefings, motions, etc.” In fact, Quynh did quite the opposite. She began to personally attack people directly who donated very large sums of money to the case. Tammy Zitun, (Tu’s original power of attorney), along with a few of Tammy’s close friends gave $12,000.00 to the case. How does Quynh return this kindness? By referring to Tammy as “a short whore”. Tammy is not the only one Quynh set her sights on. Quynh has gone after anyone who has questioned the case or the status of the case. Tracy Glass contributed $2,000.00 to the case personally, not to mention, giving money to Quynh personally outside of the case. How does Quynh repay Tracy? By posting personal conversations she had with Tracy for everyone to see.
Quynh Will Blame Everyone But Herself if The Case Gets Dismissed
If this case ends up getting dismissed, rest assured that Quynh will blame everyone but herself for why it failed. And the simple reason for it would fail is because Quynh could not keep quiet. Her attacks on members, followers, youtubers, and the Vietnamese community as a whole will be the reason it fails. Granted the court could also side with Daniel Tran and dismiss the case as well. This is of course how today’s progressive democrats deal with everything. They love to play the “victim”. Quynh will continue to portray herself as the victim. She has the following to do it. But people are getting smart. They’re waking up to the “woke” left and their ideologies. This was on full display November 5th, when a “red” wave swept the country. Trump won the White House, The House, The Senate, and the Popular Vote. People are tired of the left and it’s policies. Quynh should probably wake up and see the writing on the wall.
