Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-canb-4_15-ap-04067/USCOURTS-canb-4_15-ap-04067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hung Nguyen
Plaintiff
Trung Van Nguyen
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

 For The Northern District Of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

TRUNG VAN NGUYEN,

Debtor.

Case No. 15-40919 CN

Chapter 7

HUNG NGUYEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TRUNG VAN NGUYEN,

Defendant.

Adversary No. 15-4067

MEMORANDUM DECISION AFTER

TRIAL

On December 6, 2016, this court conducted a trial in this adversary proceeding. All

appearances were noted on the record. Plaintiff Hung Nguyen (“Nguyen”) asserts claims for relief

under §§ 523(a)(6), 727(a)(2) and (4) against defendant Trung Van Nguyen (“Van Nguyen”). In an

order entered on August 31, 2016, this court granted partial summary judgment on the substantive

elements of his § 523(a)(6) claim for relief, but denied summary judgment on damages. The court

also denied Nguyen’s motion for summary judgment on his § 727(a)(2) and (4) claims. Accordingly,

as to the § 523(a)(4) claim, the court took evidence solely on the issue of Nguyen’s damages. 

Nguyen’s counsel informed the court before the trial commenced that she intended to dismiss his

§ 727 claims. The court informed the parties that it would notice the proposed dismissal of these

claims to all interested parties under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7041.

The following constitutes this court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal

1

MEMORANDUM DECISION AFTER TRIAL

The following constitutes

the order of the court. Signed December 8, 2016

________________________________________

Charles Novack

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

December 09, 2016

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 15-04067 Doc# 45 Filed: 12/08/16 Entered: 12/09/16 12:15:27 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

 For The Northern District Of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052. 

On November 28, 2012, as a result of an altercation between the parties, Van Nguyen injured

Nguyen by smashing a beer bottle over his head and ramming Nguyen with his car. This court

determined via summary judgment that this constituted willful and malicious conduct under

§523(a)(6), but reserved the issue of damages for trial. Nguyen, who apparently is in a nursing

home, did not testify. His only witness was his chiropractor, James Chau, who treated him from

November 29, 2012 through February 27, 2013. Chau is an experienced, licensed chiropractor who

regularly treats personal injury victims and workers compensation applicants. Chau’s testimony and

office records indicate that he treated Nguyen immediately after the incident, and that he had

moderate to severe pain in his back, knee and neck, and numbness in his arms and legs due to the

incident. Nguyen had three MRIs to determine the source of the pain, and one epidural injection to

alleviate it. Chau testified that the MRIs showed some bulging discs, and that while Nguyen was

mobile, he was in pain. Chau also testified that Nguyen’s pain continued during the three months he

treated him, and that Nguyen did not improve with traditional chiropractor services. He further

stated that he stopped treating Nguyen because Nguyen could not afford his services. Chau billed

Nguyen $3,600 for his services, and estimated that the MRIs and epidural (which Chau apparently

did not administer) may have cost $13,000. Nguyen did not offer any other evidence in support of

his damages request.

Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(6) prevents a debtor from discharging a debt for willful and

malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or ro the property of another entity. This court has

the jurisdiction to enter a non-dischargeable money judgment, and now must now determine the

extent of that “injury” in dollars. See In re Sasson, 424 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2005). Under California

Civil Code § 3281, “Every person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of

another, may recover from the person in fault a compensation therefor in money, which is called

damages.” First, Nguyen is entitled to his out-of-pocket” expenses arising from the assault. Chau

testified that he charged $3,600 for his services, and Nguyen is therefore entitled to be awarded this

amount as damages. Chau, however, did not administer nor charge for the MRIs or the epidural

injection. While he testified that these procedures may cost as much as $10,000 per epidural and

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION AFTER TRIAL

Case: 15-04067 Doc# 45 Filed: 12/08/16 Entered: 12/09/16 12:15:27 Page 2 of 4
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

 For The Northern District Of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

$3,000 per MRI, he has no personal knowledge of their actual cost. See Federal Rule of Evidence

602. This court will not speculate regarding the actual cost of these procedures, and therefore

declines to award these amounts as damages.

Physical pain is also a compensable injury. This issue must be resolved by “impartial

conscience and judgment of jurors [or a judge] who may be expected to act reasonably, intelligently

and in harmony with the evidence.” Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 7 Cal.3d 889, 892-

93, 103 Cal.Rptr. 856, 500 P.2d 880 (1972). Moreover, “For harm to body, feelings or reputation,

compensatory damages reasonably proportioned to the intensity and duration of the harm can be

awarded without proof of amount other than evidence of the nature of the harm. There is no direct

correspondence between money and harm to the body, feelings or reputation. There is no market

price for a scar or for loss of hearing since the damages are not measured by the amount for which

one would be willing to suffer the harm. The discretion of the judge or jury determines the amount

of the recovery, the only standard being such an amount a reasonable person would estimate as fair

compensation.” [citation omitted.] Duarte v. Zachariah, 22 Cal.App.4th 1652, 1664-65, 28

Cal.Rptr.2d 88 (1994).

While Van Nguyen questioned the severity of Nguyen’s pain because he continued to work,

the evidence establishes that Nguyen was in moderate to severe pain while Chau treated him. The

court determines that Nguyen should recover $25,000 in damages for the pain caused by the assault. 

This court recognizes that Nguyen’s trial brief sought substantially more in damages. The court is

constrained, however, by the scope of the evidence introduced during trial. Chau was the sole source

of evidence regarding pain and suffering, and he only treated Nguyen for three months. No evidence

was introduced to establish the extent of Nguyen’s pain after his last chiropractic session with Chau. 

Accordingly, Nguyen is entitled to a $38,600.00 non-dischargeable judgment under

Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(6) against Van Nguyen. Nguyen’s counsel shall prepare and submit an

appropriate judgment. 

* * * END OF ORDER * * *

3

MEMORANDUM DECISION AFTER TRIAL

Case: 15-04067 Doc# 45 Filed: 12/08/16 Entered: 12/09/16 12:15:27 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

 For The Northern District Of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COURT SERVICE LIST

Trung Van Nguyen

1143 Viewpoint Blvd.

Rodeo, CA 94572 

Other recipients are ECF participants

4

MEMORANDUM DECISION AFTER TRIAL

Case: 15-04067 Doc# 45 Filed: 12/08/16 Entered: 12/09/16 12:15:27 Page 4 of 4