New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Internet Evidence — Circumstantial Authentication That Defendants Made Yelp Postings: Failure to Deny Authorship and Repetition of Substantially the Same Alleged Grievances in Court Filings Suffices

Download PDF

Pham v. Lee, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8812 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2014):

Plaintiff Randal Pham, an ophthalmologist, filed a defamation action against defendants Jenny Lee and Alvin Lee (the Lees) for statements they made on the Internet accusing Dr. Pham of fraud, among other things. The Lees moved to strike Dr. Pham's lawsuit under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute (section 425.16 [*1] ). The trial court denied the motion, and the Lees now appeal from the denial. ( 425.16, subd. (i).)[1]

 We conclude that because Dr. Pham has shown a probability of prevailing on the merits, the trial court did not err in denying the Lees' motion to strike. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

 

I.  Factual and Procedural Background

 Dr. Pham operates an ophthalmology clinic in San José. His patients included Young Lee (the Lees' father) and Chinh Tri Truong (the Lees' grandmother). The statements at issue arose in connection with Dr. Pham's treatment of Young Lee and Chinh Tri Truong.

A. The Complaint

On July 12, 2012, Dr. Pham filed a complaint against the Lees in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging a single cause of action-defamation. The complaint alleged that the Lees posted "false, inaccurate, and/or defamatory" statements about Dr. Pham's business practices on various Web sites. The complaint [*2]  also alleged that the Lees knew or should have known the statements were false, and that they made the statements "with malice and intent to injure plaintiffs business and business reputation." Dr. Pham attached three exhibits to the complaint, which appear to be printouts of the Lees' online reviews of Dr. Pham's business practices.

Exhibit A to the complaint is a printout of the profile page from the Web site Yelp.com (Yelp) for an individual identified as "Alvin 'chipmunk20' L." The profile, which includes the individual's photograph, specifies his location as Davis, California, and his hometown as San José. The profile includes a review for Dr. Pham posted on March 29, 2012, stating: "I've taken my grandmother here multiple times for her appointments and needless to say, this place frustrates me greatly. They overbook every single day to maximize how much money they make in a day. They told me it shouldn't take more than an hour, but in the end I missed an appointment I had because I ended up waiting for 2.5 hours. This has happened on multiple occasions which I see as very unprofessional. The reason for setting an appointment is to make sure you don't waste time waiting. Sure [*3]  all of the patient [sic] are mostly senior citizens that don't mind waiting for hours because they can interact and socialize with the countless others who have been waiting, but what about the people who take them there and are forced to wait. If you schedule an appointment for 4:30 and aren't seen until 6, there is definitely something wrong with your scheduling system. I highly suggest that you fix that problem. A free clinic moves faster than this place."

Exhibit B to the complaint is a printout of the Yelp profile page for an individual identified as "Jenny 'CJ' V." The profile includes the individual's photograph and lists her location as San José. A review for Dr. Pham posted on June 26, 2012, states: "He's a crook. Stay away."

Exhibit C to the complaint is a printout of a review of Dr. Pham from the Web site InsiderPages.com posted by a user named "Jenny L." from San José. The review, posted on March 29, 2012, states: " 'Fraud.' They completely breached patient trust by scamming me out of $200. The doctor said he was going to order special glasses to help with my vision. He ended up ordering a pair of standard reading glasses you can purchase from the drug store. Do not trust [*4]  him. He does this systematically to other patients as well. I was in the lobby and overheard the exact same problem being reported by another patient."

B. The Anti-SLAPP Motion

 On September 10, 2012, the Lees filed a special motion to strike under section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP law. They supported the motion with declarations from themselves, Young Lee, Chinh Thi Truong, and their counsel. The Lees did not deny making the Internet posts at issue. To the contrary, they included assertions about Dr. Pham's practice similar to the complaints made in the Internet posts. Jenny alleged that she had taken her grandmother to Dr. Pham's clinic on several occasions, and that her grandmother had to wait at least 45 minutes on each occasion despite arriving on time.[2] Jenny alleged that Dr. Pham sold her father common drugstore glasses for $199, and that identical glasses could be purchased elsewhere for less than $16. Her declaration attached a complaint about Dr. Pham's sale of the glasses that she had submitted to the Better Business Bureau. She included a copy of an email exchange with the Better Business Bureau dated March 30, 2012-the day after the date of the post by "Jenny L." on InsiderPages.com.

 [*5]  Similarly, Alvin's declaration asserted that he had taken his grandmother to Dr. Pham's clinic on multiple occasions, and that they experienced excessive wait times of up to 70 minutes. Alvin alleged that he observed many other patients waiting in Dr. Pham's waiting room because Dr. Pham had overbooked his appointments. Alvin also repeated Jenny's assertion that Dr. Pham had sold their father inexpensive drugstore glasses, which Dr. Pham described as "prescription" glasses, for $199. Alvin alleged that his father had heard other patients complain about this practice as well.

***

1. The Record Supports an Inference That the Lees Made the Statements at Issue

The Lees contend Dr. Pham failed to [*15]  show they made the Internet posts in question. We disagree. Dr. Pham's complaint and the declaration of his counsel included printouts of negative reviews showing they were made by persons with the same first names and last initials of the Lees. The Lees, in their declarations, do not deny they made the posts. To the contrary, they both submitted declarations making allegations identical in substance to the assertions made in the posts. Furthermore, the Lees' own declarations state that Young Lee visited Dr. Pham's clinic on March 27, 2012, at which time he purchased glasses from Dr. Pham for $199. The Internet post by "Jenny L." appeared on March 29, 2012, and Jenny's email exchange with the Better Business Bureau occurred the day after the negative review. This evidence supports the inference that the Lees made the allegedly defamatory posts.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice