Ly et al v. Tran

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 9/11/17. (gwalk, ) Order To Follow

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

YEN KIN LY, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
DUNG QUOC TRAN,
Defendant.

1:16cv1447(JCC/IDD)

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

This matter is before the Court on United States
Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis’ Report and Recommendation [Dkt.
60], which recommends that the Court enter default judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs Yen Kim Ly, Mai Anh Tran, and Baothu Huynh
Nguyen against Defendant Dung Quoc Tran.

This matter is also

before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Partial Objection to the Report
and Recommendation [Dkt. 61].

For the reasons that follow, the

Court will overrule Plaintiffs’ objection, adopt Judge Davis’
Report and Recommendation, and enter default judgment in favor of
the Plaintiffs in the amount of $301,479.00. 1
I. Background
Plaintiffs Yen Kim Ly, Mai Anh Tran, and Baothu Huynh
Nguyen (“Plaintiffs”) all individually loaned money to Defendant

1

More specifically, the Court will award $18,000.00 to Plaintiff Ly;
$242,394.18 in compensatory damages and $23,538.62 in interest to Plaintiff
Tran; and $17,546.20 to Plaintiff Nguyen.

1

Dung Quoc Tran (“Defendant”), a notable Vietnamese singer, with
the expectation that he would pay them back.

Compl. at 1.

Defendant told Plaintiffs a variety of reasons about why he needed
their money, from needing to pay for travel expenses to wanting to
save a business that he falsely purported to own to having to pay
attorney’s fees for a crime he allegedly committed while in high
school.

Id., ¶¶ 17-19, 40.

To date, Defendant has failed to pay

back the majority of the money that Plaintiffs loaned him.

As a

result, on November 18, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit
against Defendant, alleging tort claims involving fraud and
fraudulent inducement to contract under Virginia law.

Although

Defendant has wrote to this Court on several occasions [Dkts. 10,
18, 19, 47, 54, 56], he has failed to respond to Plaintiffs’
Complaint or appear at any proceedings in this matter.
On April 12, 2017, Plaintiffs moved for entry of default
judgment against Defendant.

[Dkt. 41.]

Following a hearing on

May 19, 2017, Judge Davis took the matter under advisement.

On

August 23, 2017, Judge Davis issued his Report and Recommendation.
[Dkt. 60.]

Plaintiffs filed a partial objection to this report on

September 6, 2017.

[Dkt. 61.]

This matter is now ripe for

disposition.
II. Legal Standard
Pursuant to the Federal Rules, whenever a magistrate
judge enters a recommendation on a dispositive matter, the
2

district court must review it de novo.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.”

Id.

III. Analysis
In the instant case, Plaintiffs’ only objection to the
Report and Recommendation is its conclusion that they should not
be awarded punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees associated
with bringing this action. 2

[Dkt. 61 at 2.]

Because the merits of

Judge Davis’ recommendation, as well as Plaintiffs’ objection to
that recommendation, turn on the procedural history of this case,
the Court will briefly explain that history.
On June 19, 2017, Judge Davis ordered Plaintiffs to file
a supplemental memorandum with additional detail regarding their
request for damages.

[Dkt. 52.]

Judge Davis asked for this

information because of inconsistencies between the Complaint, the
Motion for Default Judgment, and the affidavits to support the
Motion for Default Judgment.

[Id.]

The Order initially asked

Plaintiffs to provide information on compensatory damages and
interest.

[Id.]

In addition, the Order stated that Plaintiffs

should provide “the dollar amount of punitive damages requested
and support for such a request,” as well as “the amount of
2

Accordingly, having reviewed the pleadings and the Report and Recommendation,
this Court now adopts Judge Davis’ other findings with regards to subject matter
jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, venue, joinder, service of process, the
sufficiency of the Complaint, compensatory damages, and interest.

3

attorney’s fees and costs associated with this action, including
the necessary support required for such a request.”

[Id.]

When

Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted their supplemental memorandum on
June 26, 2017 [Dkt. 53], however, it did not include any
information as to punitive damages, costs, or attorney’s fees.
[Id.]

As a result, Judge Davis found that Plaintiffs “failed to

provide the necessary information or support” to permit an award
to include punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.
at 19.]

[Dkt. 60

Judge Davis then recommended denying Plaintiffs’ request

for this relief, limiting their award to compensatory damages and
interest only.

[Id.]

Now, Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that he understood the
Court’s Order of June 19, 2017, to be directing Plaintiffs to
provide information solely about compensatory damages.
at 2.]

[Dkt. 61

Due to this misunderstanding, Plaintiffs ask this Court to

reconsider Judge Davis’ recommendation and review additional
information they have since provided to the Court regarding their
request for punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

[Id.]

Having reviewed the pleadings and the Report and
Recommendation in this case, the Court finds that Judge Davis’
Order was detailed and clear, that Plaintiffs’ counsel could have
sought clarification of that Order if he had any doubt about its
meaning, that Judge Davis gave Plaintiffs multiple opportunities
to provide supplemental information to the Court to cure
4

deficiencies in previous filings, and that the additional
information provided by Plaintiffs earlier this week is still
insufficient to support an award of punitive damages, costs, and
attorney’s fees.

Accordingly, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s

objection and adopt Judge Davis’ recommendation denying
Plaintiffs’ request for the same.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will overrule
Plaintiffs’ Partial Objection [Dkt. 61], adopt Judge Davis’ Report
and Recommendation [Dkt. 60], and enter default judgment in favor
of Plaintiffs in the amount of $301,479.00. 3
An appropriate order will issue.

September 11, 2017
Alexandria, Virginia

/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3

More specifically, the Court will award $18,000.00 to Plaintiff Ly;
$242,394.18 in compensatory damages and $23,538.62 in interest to Plaintiff
Tran; and $17,546.20 to Plaintiff Nguyen.

5