“The suit is automatically abated, without a court order…”
(not in Judge Lauren Reeder’s Courtroom)
Jan 19, 2023
What is notable about the donation by Serpe Andrews is this was the only Judge in Harris County District Court who would benefit from a sizeable donation in 2022 for a total sum of $2,500 to Judge Lauren Reeder doc’d as “In-Kind Contribution: Food Beverages & Valet for Reception” https://t.co/H4vNrkVMqb
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) January 9, 2023
HCA HEALTHCARE CAME TO COURT WITH THIS “PARALLEL CASE” SEEKING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST MARK BURKE
“Vu Van Thuan, I give you the opportunity to ‘slaughter’ her.”
“Hire a black gangster to teach the Viet Cong a lesson. It’s dirt cheap!”
‘Why did the Vietnamese Community allow a Viet Cong bitch to infiltrate in our community?”
“Need to boycott her, lock her up and hang her in the Vietnamese area(s) to set an example for other Viet Cong bitches.”.
WHO ATTENDED THE IN-PERSON HEARING FOR HCA HEALTHCARE INC.?
Not a single witness, apart from Serpe Andrews lawyers, who are acting in violation of the rules as lawyers-witnesses, turned up to the in-person hearing regarding their request for a ‘trial on the merits’ for their counterclaim with applications for injunctive relief in the form of temporary and permanent injunctions.
HCA Healthcare Kingwood Hospital arrived at the hearing with two associates, the First Amendment champion of Tulane Uni., Madison Addicks, and Ben Hamel, who presented HCA Healthcare’s arguments, which relied upon prior pleadings, without any evidence of alleged harm by any witness – and one new case citation – the one I transcribe herein.
Hamel is not even counsel of record, it should have been partner Nicole Andrews, who was absent, and new lawyer Madison Addicks. Maybe Andrews is recovering from a facelift or botox procedure from her plastic surgeon husband, Todd Andrews? Who knows, but there certainly was no record of why she was absent from the hearing and no notice provided to me, nor the court at the hearing itself.
Addicks, who claims her parents are victims of Mark Burke’s online posts. Her parents are both Texas lawyers, her mother, also a Registered Nurse (RN) who still works for the medical malpractice claims industry, including as an ‘expert witness’ to rebuff claims, yet conspicuously, they were absent from the Temporary Injunction hearing.
HCA HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD HOSPITAL CLAIMED THIS COUNTERCLAIM WASN’T ABOUT DEFAMATION, IN A POOR ATTEMPT TO AVOID MY PLEA IN ABATEMENT, YET THAT’S EXACTLY THE CASE THEY RELIED UPON AT THE COURT HEARING, THIS SCANDALOUS DEFAMATION CASE
Here’s one snippet from my prior pleadings, responding to HCA Healthcare;
“SUMMARIZING THE DEFAMATION CLAIMS BY DEFENDANT(S)
SEC. 73.001. ELEMENTS OF LIBEL
Quoting directly from the act;
“A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person’s reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury.
As presented in finite detail above, the Defendant(s) Counterclaim is replete with defamation claims, and to hold otherwise would be absurd. As such, their attempts to walk back these claims proves once more, Defendant(s) are acting with malice and unclean hands and as such their Counterclaim should be dismissed using the court’s inherent powers, avoiding further time, cost and delay submitting a Rule 91a motion or partial summary judgment motion.”
And, detail confirming my non-attendance at the void court hearing was accurate, in law;
“DEFENDANT(S) ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM ANALYZED
As best Plaintiff can decipher, considering the overbroad and vague counterclaim, the first allegation of defamation is now being walked back to unlawfully evade Texas law, namely the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act (“DMA”) which currently abates this frivolous filing by Defendant(s) for 60 days without a court order after 11 days post filing of the Plea in Abatement, and includes the now abated Jan. 9, 2023 injunction(s) hearing. To clarify;
Hardy v. Commc’n Workers of Am. Local 6215 Afl-Cio, 536 S.W.3d 38, 42 (Tex. App. 2017)
(“The suit is automatically abated, without a court order, beginning on the eleventh day after the date the plea in abatement is filed,
if the plea in abatement:
- is verified and alleges that the person against whom the suit is pending did not receive the written request as required by Section 73.055 ; and
- is not controverted in an affidavit filed by the person bringing the claim before the 11th day after the date on which the plea in abatement is filed. Id. § 73.062(b).
The abatement continues until the sixtieth day after the date the written request is served or a later date agreed to by the parties.”)
Despite this, the hearing was held and the judgment entered, denying the injunction. Technically, it’s a void order, but certainly I believe nobody is going to take up that challenge now that the injunction has been disposed of, as the outcome was correct, in law.
[This is part I of my analysis, check back for regular updates and related posts]
‘Constantly putting profits over patients’
Operating in 20 U.S. states, HCA @HCAhealthcare generated almost $7 billion in earnings in 2021, double that of the prior year, securities filings show. https://t.co/2NYUNUE2qr @Jim_Jordan @tedcruz @GovAbbott @KenPaxtonTX @NBCNews pic.twitter.com/BEYK8yi4j9
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) January 13, 2023
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Originally Published: Jul. 3, 2022 | Republished: Jan. 19, 2023
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff Maya Dangelas files her Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment and would show the Court as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL STEPS
1. This litigation arises from a defamation/libel action against Dr. Maya Dangelas. (Appendix I – Plaintiff’s Petition.)
Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 27.003(a) and § 27.005(c)).
This Honorable Court’s after a long Temporary Injunction Hearing, denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Appendix II – Order Denying the Motion to Dismiss);
and Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Decision and Memorandum of the first Court of Appeals affirming this Honorable Court’s Denying of the Motion to Dismiss. (Appendix III- Order and Memorandum of the First Court of Appeals.)1
The case was remanded to this Court for further adjudication. Defendants filed a General Denial (Appendix IV), and no affirmative defenses and counterclaims have ever been asserted by
Defendants have not conducted any meaningful discovery and have no evidence to support their General Denial.
An adequate time for discovery has passed, and a no-evidence summary judgment is appropriate.
1. This became necessary because two people engaged in a campaign to harm and destroy Plaintiff, Dr. Maya Dangelas.
Specifically, Defendants Thang Bui and Monique Nguyen knowingly endangered the life of a private citizen, Dr. Maya Dangelas and her family, through false and reckless online statements.
Dr. Dangelas has presented a prima facie case covering elements of a cause of action for defamation/libel against the Defendants.
In the temporary injunction hearing, the Court found that Dr. Dangelas met the higher standard of demonstrating “a likelihood of success on the merits of her defamation claim.”
Accordingly, this Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, and Defendants’ Motions failed under both Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 27.003(a) and § 27.005(c).
2. The Court of Appeals agreed with this Court. (Appendix III.)2
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND (ALL EXHIBITS LISTED IN THIS SECTION ARE CONTAINED IN THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION TRANSCRIPT AND EXHIBITS WHICH IS INCORPORATED INTO AND ATATCHED HERETO FOR THE COURT’S CONVENIENCE AS APPENDIX V.)
3. Plaintiff Maya Dangelas was born and educated in Vietnam with the name Đăng Thi Hoang Yen. Dr. Dangelas grew up in a country that suffered through a brutal war and a painful rebuilding under communist control.
In the mid-1980’s Dr. Dangelas joined the Vietnamese Communist Party to get a job so she could support her family.
Employment opportunities were very limited in Vietnam at that time.
Many jobs and career paths were only available to members of the
(Ex. A at ¶ 2. Ex. B at 72:01-22.)
Dr. Dangelas left the Communist Party in 1992 and never rejoined.
(Ex. A at ¶ 3. Ex. B at 72:23-25.)
1. In 2012 Dr. Dangelas left Vietnam to escape from threats to herself and her family.
Ex. A at ¶ 4.
Her secretary was kidnapped at around that time. Id.
She has escaped the brutality and lived in the United States since 2012 and has never returned to Vietnam. Id.
She became a United States citizen on July 14, 2014. Id. at ¶ 5.
She legally changed her name to Maya Dangelas in order to protect the privacy and safety of her family. Id.
In the United States she has always gone by the name “Maya Dang” or “Maya Dangelas.” Id.
She has not used the name Đăng Thi Hoang Yen in the United States because she has wanted to protect her family from the people who threatened her in Vietnam. Id.
2. Dr. Dangelas lives in Houston as a private citizen.
She has not held or sought any public office in the United States, nor has she sought any prominent position in the Vietnamese community in the United States.
Id. at ¶ 6. Ex.2 at 75:11-24.
She has not inserted herself into any public controversy regarding communism, anti-communism, Vietnam, or the Vietnamese community in America.
Ex. A at ¶ 6.
She has sought to lead a quiet life as a private citizen, managing her businesses and raising her family. Id.
3. Starting on or around July 15, 2018, Defendants Bui and Nguyen made statements purporting to “expose” Ms. Dangelas as a member of the Viet Cong, a paramilitary communist organization in Vietnam that killed and imprisoned millions of people during the Vietnam War.
Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.
Defendants have made Facebook posts and comments accusing Plaintiff Dangelas of being a Viet Cong operative carrying out a secret conspiracy called Resolution No. 36 to bribe anti-communists in Houston, and of taking other actions on behalf of the Viet Cong.3 Id.
a. Ex. 2 at p. 9. Monique Nguyen, July 16 at 8:29 PM: Post shows photograph of Dr. Dangelas at a dinner party, with caption, “First announcement is the picture of those faces who eat, drink, do business, butter-up, kiss ass. Dang Thi Hoang Yen (Maya Dang) is the Viet Cong bitch in Houston alright.”
b. Ex. 2 at 10. Monique Nguyen, July 16 at 11:30 AM: “This morning someone warned me (Bach Hac) that I should watch out for the local Communist Maya Dang and the bunch close to the Communists because they’re a bunch of ‘mafia.’”
c. Ex. 2 at 11. Monique Nguyen, July 15 at 4:12 PM: post shows picture of Ms. Dangelas with caption, “This is the local Viet Cong in Houston, from whom many people have received the favors because they were invited to dinner, party and then birthday party in Las Vegas. After the party, there were gifts to bring home. So, ‘they ate, they talked, they had gifts to bring home.’”
d. Ex. 5. Monique Nguyen, July 20: “However, the past few days, a local communist has been unmasked with clear evidence, but no one has spoken up, demonstrated their attitudes, their viewpoints of anti-communists except a small group of people. Where is the Military Organization? Where are the Political Groups? Where are the groups of demonstrators? … Just one local Vietcong bitch was able to break the Houston community in pieces. She ‘lured’ you by entertaining you on her expense – she let you enjoy yourselves at first before she ‘captured your heart.’ She slipped in the Buddhist Temple, specifically, Quang Duc Buddhist Temple and School (Rice University). What’s going to happen next?”
e. Ex. 4. Monique Nguyen, July 27 at 9:24AM: “Local Communist, Congresswoman of Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Session XIII, CEO of Tan Tao Corporation, slipped in the Vietnamese Refugee Community in Houston since 2007 to carry out Resolution 36 by spending money on social gatherings, travels, lavish dinner … this money came from the blood, sweat, and tears of the Vietnamese country fellows. Many people in the Community have no idea that Dang Thi Hoang Yen (Maya Dang) is a local Communist; therefore, they attended the parties she organized.”
f. Ex. 2. Monique Nguyen Facebook exchange on August 2, 2018:
o Monique Nguyen: “Communist living in Houston – Dang Thi Hoang Yen (AKA Maya Dang)” o Horry Nguyen: “Under the laws of the United States the communists would not be allowed to settle in America. The laws of America have been very clear about this.”
o Monique Nguyen: “Then how in the world she is here legally. She has also been going back and forth between the U.S. and Vietnam to perform her duties as a member of the communist party.”
2. These statements about Dr. Dangelas are false. (Ex. A at ¶ 11). She has never been a part of or worked on behalf of the Viet Cong. Id. She is not a communist, nor has she been a member of the Vietnamese Communist Party since she left the Party in 1992. Id. She has taken no actions in the United States on behalf of the government of Vietnam or the Vietnamese Communist Party. Id. She has taken no actions to advance “Resolution 36.” Id.; Ex. F at 74:18-75:01.
3. In addition, Bui and Nguyen have posted false allegations about Ms. Dangelas and her family, including that Ms. Dangelas had an affair with the former President of Vietnam, and that her 10-year-old daughter is the illegitimate child of the former President, who was a prominent member of the Communist Party. (Ex. A at ¶ 12); Ex. 10. Defendants also posted personally identifying information about Maya Dangelas and her daughters, including:
a. Ex. 1. Thang Bui July 19 at 2:08 PM: “August 19, 2012, she was on flight UA530, departed from San Diego at 11:27 and arrived in Houston, Texas at 16:45 (Boeing plane 757-200).” Post shows photograph of Ms. Dangelas’s home in Houston with the address listed.
b. Ex. 2.Thang Bui posting on Monique Nguyen’s Facebook page on July 24 at 11:49 AM: Post shows photographs and addresses of Ms. Dangelas’s home and her daughter’s homes, with caption, “WHAT DANG THI HOANG YEN HAS BEEN DOING IN THE UNITED STATES 1/May 28, 2012 someone saw her at 12:30 get on flight SQ 173 (Boeing 777-200 Number…”
c. Ex. 10. Exchange on Thang Bui’s Facebook page on July 24, 2018 at 12:55 PM, depicting photograph of Ms. Dangelas’s young daughter:
o Bac Ninh Nguyen: “Thank you Thang Bui! Sending you (Thang Bui) this photo. Is the child in this picture named Dang Nguyen Tam Anh, the daughter of Dang Thi Hoang Yen and Tu Sang?”
o Thang Bui: “Yes, that’s correct brother.”
o Monique Nguyen: “The American name of the child is [name provided].”
4. Defendants, and multiple individuals responding to Defendants’ false allegations about Dr. Dangelas that she was a prostitute.
5. Defendants have made threats of violence against Dr. Dangelas, including:
a. Ex. 6. Exchange regarding Ms. Dangelas on Monique Nguyen’s Facebook page on July 20, 2018: o Vu Van Thuan: “Catch and slaughter her.”
o Monique Nguyen: “Vu Van Thuan, I give you the opportunity to ‘slaughter’ her.”
o Vu Van Than: “I am in Vietnam, how can I come over there to slaughter her?” o Monique Nguyen: “She goes back to Vietnam all the time. Her root is over there, though.”
o Vu Van Thuan: “Oh, hahaha, is that right? Bully her over there so she will come back to the country for good.”
o Monique Nguyen: “Vu Van Thuan, Doing it right now dear.”
b. Ex. 8. Monique Nguyen Facebook page, exchange between Nguyen and Nguyen Truong Tho regarding Ms. Dangelas, Nguyen Truong Tho states, “How was that Viet Cong Dang Thi Hoang Yen allowed to commit such a horrible act – dared to hit and run but no one could do a thing about it Bach Hac? Hire a black gangster to teach the Viet Cong a lesson. It’s dirt cheap!”
c. Ex. 15. Response by a Facebook user Andy Pham in response to Thang Bui’s posts about Ms. Dangelas on the Facebook group “Dan Saigon Xu’a”: “Don’t let this fly dirty the country we live in. Destroy her.”
d. Ex. 16. Thang Bui in exchange of posts discussing Ms. Dangelas: “If you want to destroy Chinese Communists, you must destroy Viet Cong, if you want to destroy Viet Cong, you must destroy the Vietnamese traitors overseas first.”
e. Ex. 17. Response by a Facebook user called “Con Vietnam” in response to Thang Bui’s posts and photograph of Ms. Dangelas on the Facebook group “Dan Saigon Xu’a”: “Why did the Vietnamese Community allow a Viet Cong bitch to infiltrate in our community?? – need to boycott her, lock her up and hang her in the Vietnamese area(s) to set an example for other Viet Cong bitches.”
6. On August 17, 2018, the Court received evidence regarding Dr. Dangelas’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order requiring Defendants to delete their threatening posts. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order stating that “Plaintiff has demonstrated probable irreparable
injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law and a likelihood of success on the merits of her defamation claim.”
7. On August 28, 2018, the Court heard evidence from Dr. Dangelas and the Defendants regarding her request for a Temporary Injunction. The Court granted the Temporary Injunction, finding that “Plaintiff has demonstrated probable irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law and a likelihood of success on the merits of her defamation claim.” (Appendix II – Order Denying the Motion to Dismiss).
8. The First Court of Appeals affirmed this Honorable Court’s Denying of the Motion to Dismiss. (Appendix III- Order and Memorandum of the First Court of Appeals.)
All the lawyers and Judge conspired against Sanchez in this shocking video out of Utah State Court. Watch the full video here; https://t.co/PXw70pZDPj
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) January 8, 2023
I. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
2. “Under Rule 166a(i), a party may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.”
W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. 2005).
The movant need not produce any evidence supporting its no-evidence motion.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); Home State Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Horn, No. 12-07-00094-CV, 2008 WL 2514332, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 25, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Branson v. Spiros Partners Ltd., No. 04-07-00007-CV, 2007 WL 4547502, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 28, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(citing Judge David Hittner & Lynne Liberato, Summary Judgments in Texas, 34 HOUS. L. REV. 1303, 1356 (1998)).
3. Instead, the mere filing of a proper motion shifts the burden to the nonmovant to come forward with enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
Home State Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2514332, at *2).
4. If the non-movant does not come forward with evidence, the court must grant the motion.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i).
Specifically, the court must grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment unless the nonmoving party produces evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
A. AN ADEQUATE TIME FOR DISCOVERY HAS PASSED
5. A movant may seek a no-evidence summary judgment once an adequate time for discovery has passed.10 Here, discovery time has lapsed, absent an agreement by the parties, which has not been sought nor entered.
Thus, an adequate time for discovery has passed.
B. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT TO REFUTE ALL ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLANDER CAUSE OF ACTION AND STRICT LIABILITY
Elements of Defamation
6. Under Texas law, written defamation referred to as “libel,” is actionable by statute. As here, Defendants posted untrue statements about Plaintiff on their Facebook.
Generally, defamation means “the invasion of a person’s interest in her reputation and good name.”
Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tex. 2013).
7. According to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § Sec. 73.001:
Elements of Libel: “A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that . . . tends to injure a living person’s reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury.”
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § Sec. 73.001.
2. Strict Liability
8. This cause of action exists if the claim is between a private plaintiff and a private citizen as here.
9. In defamation cases, if the false and defamatory statement at issue is considered defamatory per se, the plaintiff may be awarded nominal damages without proof of actual injury.
This is because mental anguish and loss of reputation are presumed based on the statement alone.
Brady v. Klentzman, 515 S.W.3d 878, 886 (Tex. 2017).
Examples of statements by defendants that are defamatory per se (as here) include those accusing someone of a crime or those that tend to injure a person in her, profession, or occupation.
In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 596.
Dr. Dangelas is an educator and Provost of Tan Tao University.
Statements that Dr. Dangelas is a spy (who came to the U.S. to carry out Resolution 36 and to spend one billion to carry out the plan for the Communists and the money came from the blood, sweat, and tears of the Vietnamese country fellows) injurious to someone of Dr. Dangelas stature and profession as an Educator.
D. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DEFENDANTS’ GENERAL DENIAL THERE IS NO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ASSTERTED.
10. Defendants failed to assert any affirmative defenses. Likewise, they failed to present any evidence to support their general denial of liability.
No pleadings were ever pleaded, and no evidence was presented as to whether the allegations are true.
No pleadings were ever pleaded, and no evidence was presented as to whether the allegations are protected by any privilege.
No pleadings were ever pleaded, and no evidence was presented as to whether the allegations are a matter of opinion.
No pleadings were ever pleaded, and no evidence was presented as to whether the allegations are asserted via Plaintiff’s consent.
II. CONCLUSION & PRAYER
11. An adequate time for discovery has passed and there is no evidence sufficient to raise a fact issue or to refute Plaintiff’s causes of action for libel and libel per se.
Defendants engaged in conduct that results in Strict Liability under Texas law.
Moreover, Defendants failed to plead any affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims. As such, Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to set this motion for hearing with at least 21 days’ notice, and, after the hearing, grant Plaintiff’s Motion on liability and set a hearing for damages.
THE TAMMY TRAN LAW FIRM
By: /s/ Minh-Tam Tran
Texas State Bar No. 20186400
2915 Fannin St.
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 655-0737
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on the parties of record by electronic filing, e-mail, facsimile transmission, or certified mail on March 7, 2022.
/s/ Minh-Tam Tran