Vicky Hoang Nguyen v. Khoa Dang Hoang

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning a motion for default judgment. The court overrules the objections, adopts the report and recommendation, grants default judgment on a conversion-of-funds claim, denies relief on the remaining claims, and enters judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $133,648.00.

Holdings

1. A district court need not disturb a magistrate judge's decision based on arguments not presented to the magistrate judge, and merely restating prior arguments or reciting legal standards does not satisfy the requirement that objections be specific and particularized.
2. Virginia Code § 18.2-186.3 and the federal identity-theft statutes cited by Plaintiff impose criminal liability and do not provide a private civil cause of action or civil remedy. The Virginia criminal forgery and uttering statute likewise does not provide a standalone private right of action.
3. Plaintiff could not recover under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 because it is a criminal provision, and Plaintiff could not assert a claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7434 for the first time in objections when the complaint pleaded § 7201 instead.
4. The Maryland and Virginia tax statutes cited in Counts VII and VIII do not confer a private right of action.
5. Plaintiff's allegations did not establish conduct sufficiently outrageous or emotional distress sufficiently severe to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Virginia law.
6. A party cannot prevail on a simple negligence claim based on an intentional act, and negligence per se is not a distinct cause of action; it may establish a standard of care only as part of a viable common-law negligence claim. Because Plaintiff alleged intentional and malicious conduct, the allegations did not support negligence, gross negligence, willful and wanton negligence, or negligence per se.
7. Plaintiff failed to show good cause for leave to amend the complaint to change the conversion claim from conversion of an Audi SUV to conversion of $20,000 after default judgment had been granted on the claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation were sufficiently specific and properly presented for de novo review.
2. Whether Virginia's identity-theft, forgery, Maryland tax, and Virginia tax statutes provide Plaintiff with private civil causes of action.
3. Whether federal identity-theft and aggravated-identity-theft statutes provide Plaintiff with a private civil remedy.
4. Whether Plaintiff could raise a negligence per se theory for the first time in objections to the Report and Recommendation.
5. Whether Plaintiff adequately alleged outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Virginia law.
6. Whether intentional and malicious conduct can support simple negligence, gross negligence, willful and wanton negligence, or negligence per se claims.
7. Whether Plaintiff showed good cause to amend the complaint to change the asserted conversion property after default judgment was granted on the conversion count.

Disposition

other