In April 2008, plaintiff Thieu-Huan Bell and her mother, Vy-Dza Tran, were sued in a small-claims action in a Philadelphia court. The claimants, Harry Huang and his wife, Rebecca Li-Huang, sought recovery of $10,000 that had been loaned to Thieu-Huan Bell’s brother, who was apparently unreachable. The money had been wired into an account maintained by Tran, possibly without her knowledge. The loan’s actual amount was $11,000, but the small-claims court capped recoveries at $10,000. The small-claims action resulted in a judgment in favor of Huang and Li-Huang, but the parties negotiated a settlement after an appeal was filed. Tran agreed to pay $500, and Bell was dismissed with prejudice. In a subsequent action in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Bell sued Huang, Li-Huang and the attorney who filed the small-claims action, Andrew Spiegel. Bell alleged that the defendants’ filing of the small-claims action constituted malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Post-filing rulings resulted in the matter proceeding to a trial that addressed an allegation of wrongful use of civil proceedings in violation of the Dragonetti Act. Spiegel, who had agreed to a settlement, was not involved in the trial. Bell claimed that the defendants initiated the small-claims action to compel a settlement from her and her mother, knowing that neither had been involved in the loan that was conveyed to her brother. Defense counsel contended that Bell was named in the small-claims action because she was thought to be a second holder of an account from which her brother issued a check that, though it was ostensibly intended to repay the loan at issue, ultimately bounced. Defense counsel also contended that the small-claims action was filed with probable cause, given that the claimants established their case and prevailed during the trial of that matter., Bell claimed that the small-claims court action caused emotional distress that aggravated a pre-existing condition, gestational diabetes. She claimed that she developed type-2 diabetes, or a pre-diabetic condition, that lingered until the small-claims court action’s dismissal in January 2009. She sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress and her pain and suffering, recovery of more than $11,000 in attorney’s fees that stemmed from the small-claims court action, and recovery of punitive damages. Defense counsel challenged the necessity of the attorney fees that stemmed from the small-claims court action. They claimed that Huang and Li-Huang repeatedly offered to dismiss the case against Bell if Bell could prove that she had no involvement in the use of the loan. They also contested Bell’s physical injury.