PITTSBURGH – One defendant has denied claims of liability in a lawsuit brought by a nail salon’s former employee, an ex-employee who claimed he was physically assaulted by one of the defendants over Payroll Protection Program funds that allegedly remained in his possession.
Nhat Ngo and Cuc T. Huynh of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 19 versus Jay Humphrey and Tran Nguyen Humphrey of Coraopolis, and VIP 3 Limited Liability Company (doing business as “VIP 3 Nails Spa and Lounge”), also of Pittsburgh.
At the time of the events in question, Ngo was employed by VIP 3 Nails Spa and Lounge in Robinson Township.
“On June 5, 2020, sometime between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., Mr. Humphrey arrived at plaintiff’s residence. Mr. Humphrey confronted plaintiff at his residence and viciously punched plaintiff in the face, causing plaintiff to fall to the ground and rendering plaintiff unconscious,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff did not initiate any physical contact with defendant and did not utter any words or make any movements or gestures, that provoked defendant’s attack. After striking plaintiff down, defendant left plaintiff’s place of residence. Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room of St. Clair Hospital for medical treatment. Officers of the Scott Township Police Department met plaintiff at the hospital.”
The suit explained that Officer Peterson stated in his police report that he noticed the plaintiff’s left eye was swollen, black and blue, and that plaintiff had a gash under his left eye that was bleeding. Later on the night of June 5, 2020, Officer Peterson confronted Mr. Humphrey at his residence, where he admitted that he punched Ngo.
“On June 5, 2020, defendant intentionally and with malice threatened to cause serious bodily injury to plaintiff by sending text messages from defendant’s phone to plaintiff’s phone. In the text messages, defendant stated: “I am going to f— you up really bad soon if you do not give me back those two paychecks” and “I think you might have forgotten I am not really a nice person,” per the suit.
“Defendant’s threats put plaintiff in fear of immediate physical injury at a time when defendant had the ability and means to carry out his threats and to inflict such injury.”
In the attack, the plaintiff said he suffered fractured nasal bones resulting in disfigurement, head trauma, facial lacerations, depressed nasal line, swelling and bruising of his face, deviated nasal septum, fractured teeth, misalignment of teeth, constant pain, aches and discomfort, difficulty sleep and engaging in daily activities due to emotional distress and anxiety and other physical, emotional and psychological injuries.
The plaintiff claimed he may require as many as six root canals to repair his teeth and other extensive dental work.
After an amended complaint was filed on March 18, the defendants filed preliminary objections on April 30.
In them, they alleged that each claim brought by Huynh, the primary plaintiff’s mother, is legally insufficient because no duty was owed to her by the defendant, and that restitution is not a recognized civil cause of action in Pennsylvania.
“The test to determine whether there is liability in an action of tort is in the answer to the question of whether a defendant, by an act or omission, has injured another party by disregarding a duty imposed by law with respect to that other party,” the objections read, in part.
“Plaintiff Cuc T. Huynh has brought claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional/reckless infliction of emotional distress. No legal duty is owed to Huynh and, therefore, each of her claims must be dismissed with prejudice.”
In a May 27 answer to the preliminary objections, plaintiff counsel refuted this argument.
“To the contrary, defendants owed a legal duty to plaintiff Cuc T. Huynh as plaintiff Nhat Ngo’s mother, who was living in the same residence with plaintiff Ngo at the time of the assault and who was and continues to be dependent on plaintiff Ngo for financial and emotional support,” the response stated.
“Further, as alleged in the first amended complaint, plaintiff Huynh was present in the residence when she heard shouting and ran out of the apartment to see her son lying on the ground, his face covered in blood. These allegations of fact meet the requirement of ‘sensory and contemporaneous observance’ of the assault [under Neff v. Lasso].”
For counts of assault and battery, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, restitution and negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $35,000, plus interest, costs and delay damages.
UPDATE
On Nov. 1, defendant Tran Nguyen Humphrey filed an answer to the complaint, denying its contents and providing new matter.
“Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against this defendant. The incident allegedly giving rise to plaintiff’s injuries was unforeseeable to this defendant in the manner in which it allegedly occurred. The plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of comparative negligence and/or assumption of the risk. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, if any, were caused by the acts and/or omissions of individuals and/or entities other than this defendant and for whose actions or omissions this defendant cannot be held liable,” per the new matter in question.
“Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, if any, were caused by intervening and superseding causes, not by any acts or omissions of this defendant. Plaintiff may not recover for any injuries or damages which were pre-existing at the time of the events alleged in plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The plaintiffs may not recover any medical expenses in excess of the amounts accepted as full payment in satisfaction of medical bills pursuant to Moorehead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center.”
For counts of assault and battery, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, restitution and negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $35,000, plus interest, costs and delay damages.
The plaintiff is represented by Mark E. Ulven of Elliott & Davis, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Daniel M. Taylor, Jr. and Mary A. Shahverdian of Margolis Edelstein and Robert L. Garber, all also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-000553
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com