CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
ORANGE COUNTY • 2026-CA-001937-O

Steven Nguyen v. Dung Manh Vu

Filed: Feb 22, 2026
Type: CA - Breach of Agreement/Contract
View Official Docket ↗

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: how do you lose a third of a million dollars to a guy you met once, in a nail salon deal that didn’t even legally exist? Welcome to the wild world of Nguyen v. Vu, where friendship, fraud, and Florida converge in a tale so slick it could’ve been sold as a Lifetime movie before it ended up in a civil court filing.

Steven Nguyen, a nail salon owner from Tennessee, thought he was investing in a dream — or at least a down-to-earth business opportunity. Dung Manh Vu, also known as Henry (because of course he has a Western alias), was the charismatic pitchman who walked into Nguyen’s life like a real estate agent for get-rich-quick schemes. They met in July 2023, thanks to a mutual friend — the kind of setup that sounds harmless until you realize it’s the opening scene of every scam since the invention of money. Vu didn’t waste time. Within minutes, he was spinning a story about Trendy Salon Suite, LLC — a nail salon under construction in Orlando, Florida, at 7017 S. Orange Blossom Trail. He claimed he’d already run other successful salons, that this one was almost ready to open, and that the only thing standing between him and salon domination was cold, hard cash. And wouldn’t you know it? He had a perfect investor in mind: Nguyen.

Vu’s pitch was simple: give me $300,000, and I’ll hand over 30% of my 100% ownership in Trendy. Oh, and if it flops? No sweat — I’ll give you every penny back. Sounds like a no-lose deal, right? Except when someone promises you a guaranteed return on a business investment, that’s not a business pitch — that’s a red flag waving like it’s trying out for the Olympic torch relay. But Nguyen, either trusting or desperate, went all in. He sold his own nail salon. He borrowed from family. He borrowed from friends. He mortgaged his house. This wasn’t spare change he was throwing at a side hustle — this was his entire financial life, rolled into one high-stakes bet on a man he’d known for weeks.

The first $5,000 changed hands on July 28, 2023. Then came the rest — $295,000, paid in chunks, the final installment arriving October 27. Vu even drafted up two “Sale & Partner Agreement” documents, which sounds official until you realize they’re about as binding as a handshake at a magic convention. The deal was sealed. Nguyen was now — in theory — a 30% owner of a Florida LLC called Trendy Salon Suite. Except here’s the kicker: Trendy Salon Suite, LLC wasn’t even legally formed until March 30, 2024. That’s nine months after Nguyen started handing over money. Vu was selling shares in a company that didn’t exist. It’s like buying stock in a unicorn — not the mythical creature, but the startup kind, except this one wasn’t even incorporated yet.

But Nguyen didn’t know that. What he did know was that within days of the first payment, Vu had already pulled over $100,000 out of the project funds. When Nguyen asked what was going on, Vu gave him the classic financial ghosting — vague answers, dodged questions, the whole “I’m handling it” routine. Then, on the very same day Nguyen handed over the final $295,000 installment, Vu hit him up for another $30,000, claiming the salon was “losing money.” Nguyen, now deep in the sunk-cost fallacy, handed it over. That brings the grand total to $330,000 — the cost of a nice suburban home in many parts of America, or, in this case, the price of one man’s misplaced trust.

Then the silence began. Vu cut off Nguyen’s access to the salon’s security cameras — the only window Nguyen had into the operation. He stopped responding to messages. He ghosted like a TikTok influencer after a scandal. And then, on November 9, 2023 — just weeks after the last payment — Vu did the ultimate flex of betrayal: he listed the salon for sale, advertising himself as the 100% owner. No mention of Nguyen. No partnership. Just Henry Vu, sole proprietor, ready to cash out.

Nguyen finally got Vu on the phone that same day. And in a moment that feels ripped from a crime drama, Vu promised to pay him back — with interest. To prove he wasn’t totally heartless, Vu sent two payments of $3,300 — a grand total of $6,600, or about 2% of what he owed. Then he blamed his pho restaurant — yes, his drive-thru pho restaurant — for the delay, claiming he needed to sell it to raise the cash. Nguyen, clinging to hope, waited. But Vu sold the restaurant, kept the money, and then — in a move so bold it deserves its own awards category — sold the nail salon too, pocketed that cash, and then fled to Texas. By February 2024, he was gone. And Nguyen was left with nothing but a mortgage, a sold business, and a friendship that had turned into a financial horror story.

Now, Nguyen is suing — not for revenge, but for the $323,400 Vu still owes him after the $6,600 in token repayments. He’s making two main arguments: breach of contract and fraud. The first is straightforward: we had a deal, I paid, you didn’t deliver. The second is juicier — fraud. Nguyen claims Vu lied about everything: the ownership transfer, the refund promise, the salon’s financial losses, even his own status as the sole owner when he listed it for sale. And the most damning part? Vu knew Trendy didn’t legally exist when he promised Nguyen a stake in it. That’s not just bad business — that’s textbook fraud. You can’t sell shares in a company that’s still a twinkle in a Secretary of State’s eye.

Is $323,400 a lot? In this context? It’s everything. This wasn’t spare change from a side gig — this was Nguyen’s life savings, his home equity, his network of family and friends tapped out to fund a dream that was never real. For Vu, it might’ve been just another scam. For Nguyen, it’s financial ruin. And yet, the most absurd part isn’t even the scale of the theft — it’s the audacity. Vu didn’t just take the money and run. He took it, lied about why he needed more, sold the fake business, sold his other business, and then vanished like a magician after a disappearing act. He didn’t even try to hide the tracks — listing the salon for sale while pretending Nguyen didn’t exist is the kind of move that says, “I don’t think you matter at all.”

Our take? We’re rooting for Nguyen — not just because he’s the plaintiff, but because this case is a masterclass in how not to treat a friend. The idea that someone could exploit trust so completely, over something as mundane as a nail salon, is equal parts tragic and ridiculous. It’s the kind of story that makes you want to hug your loved ones — and then triple-check any business deals you’re about to make with people who use phrases like “I’ll give it all back if it fails.” Because in the end, this wasn’t just about money. It was about betrayal wrapped in paperwork, and a friendship turned into a financial crime scene. And if justice has any sense of drama, Nguyen won’t just get his money back — he’ll get to watch Vu explain, under oath, why he thought he could get away with selling a company that didn’t exist. Spoiler: the answer is probably just “Florida.”

Case Overview

$323,400 Demand Complaint
Jurisdiction
Circuit Court, Florida
Filing Attorney
Thomas S. Dolney
Relief Sought
$323,400 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Breach of Contract Nguyen accuses Vu of breaching a contract to invest in a nail salon and transfer ownership in exchange for $300,000.
2 Fraud Nguyen accuses Vu of making false statements to induce him to invest in the nail salon.

Docket Events

5 entries

Petition Text

1,295 words
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STEVEN NGUYEN, plaintiff, v. DUNG MANH VU, defendant. _____________________________ Case No.: COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Steven Nguyen, by counsel, sues defendant, Dung Manh ("Henry") Vu, and alleges as follows: The Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 1. Plaintiff, Steven Nguyen ("Nguyen"), is an individual, sui juris, who resides in Shelby County, Tennessee, but who submitted himself to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court for the reasons set forth herein. 2. Defendant, Dung Manh ("Henry") Vu ("Vu"), is an individual, sui juris, who resides in Collin County, Texas, but who entered into a contract in Orange County, Florida; who entered into contracts the performance of which were to take place in Orange County, Florida; who committed intentional torts against Nguyen in Orange County, Florida; and who is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court for the reasons set forth herein. Background 3. On about July 27, 2023, Nguyen was introduced to Vu through a mutual friend. 4. During their meeting, Vu mentioned to Nguyen Trendy Salon Suite, LLC ("Trendy"), a Florida limited liability company. 5. Also during their meeting, Vu told Nguyen that Trendy was his nail salon project that was under construction in Orange County, Florida, at 7017 S. Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida 32809; and that he had successfully operated other nail salons. 6. Also during their meeting, Vu mentioned to Nguyen that Trendy could not be completed due to Vu’s lack of cash flow. 7. Also during their meeting, Vu asked Nguyen to invest in the project. 8. Finally, during the meeting, Vu promised Nguyen that if the Trendy venture did not work out, Vu would refund to Nguyen all the money Nguyen would invest. 9. Nguyen caused to be turned over a total of $5,000 to Vu on July 28, 2023, to further the Trendy venture. 10. Vu prepared two "Sale & Partner Agreement" documents which were signed, which mentioned Vu selling part of his membership interest in Trendy to Nguyen. 11. Vu and Nguyen then agreed that: (a) Nguyen would cause to be paid $300,000 (less the $5,000 previously placed) to Vu; and (b) in exchange, Vu would transfer 30% of his 100% membership interest in Trendy to Nguyen. 12. Nguyen gathered all the money he had, sold his nail salon in Tennessee, borrowed money from friends, borrowed money from family, and mortgaged his home in Tennessee to raise the remaining funds. 13. Nguyen then caused to be turned over the remaining $295,000 to Vu in several increments, the last of which being made on October 27, 2023, to further the Trendy venture and transfer of membership interest. 14. Vu never transferred 30% of his 100% membership interest in Trendy to Nguyen, however. 15. A mere few days lapsed after the first sums were made to Vu, before Vu drew down over $100,000 of the money Nguyen had caused to be placed with him. 16. When Nguyen inquired of Vu as to the nature of the abrupt withdrawals, Vu avoided answering directly. 17. Also on October 27, 2023, Vu demanded that Nguyen cause to be placed an additional $30,000 with him, providing the excuse that Trendy was losing money. 18. Nguyen then caused to be placed with Vu another $30,000. 19. Vu then cutoff all camera access to the venture, as well as all communication. 20. On November 9, 2023, Vu listed the Trendy venture for sale, representing himself as the 100% owner. 21. Also on November 9, 2023, Vu and Nguyen had a telephone call. 22. During that call, Vu promised to return Nguyen’s investment with interest. 23. Vu partially performed, and made two payments of $3,300 to Nguyen. 24. After Nguyen demanded the immediate return of all the money he paid, Vu said that he needed more time to sell his drive thru pho restaurant to obtain the funds to pay Nguyen back. 25. Vu then sold the Trendy venture. 26. In around February 2024, Vu fled to Texas. 27. In total, Vu owes Nguyen $323,400. 28. Unbeknownst to Nguyen, Trendy was not even organized as a Florida limited liability company until March 30, 2024 (effective date; filed April 1, 2024), with the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Corporations. Count 1 Breach of Contract 29. This is an action by Nguyen against Vu for damages that exceed $50,000 exclusive of interest and court costs, and is otherwise within the jurisdiction and venue of this Court for the reasons set forth herein. 30. Nguyen realleges Paragraphs 1-28 above, as though more fully set forth herein. 31. Nguyen and Vu agreed that: (a) Nguyen would cause to be paid $300,000 (less the $5,000 previously placed) to Vu; and (b) in exchange, Vu would transfer 30% of his 100% membership interest in Trendy to Nguyen. 32. Nguyen caused to be tendered the total amount of $300,000 to Vu on about October 27, 2023. 33. Vu never transferred 30% of his 100% interest in Trendy to Nguyen, however. 34. Nguyen also transferred another $30,000 to Vu for the Trendy venture. 35. Vu has repaid merely $6,600 to Nguyen. 36. As a direct and proximate cause of Vu’s breach, Nguyen has incurred $323,400 in damage. 37. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been performed, have occurred, or have been waived. Wherefore, Nguyen demands judgment against Vu for: (a) $323,400; (b) prejudgment interest; (c) court costs; and (d) such other relief as this Court deems necessary and proper. Count 2 Fraud 38. This is an action by Nguyen against Vu for damages that exceed $50,000 exclusive of interest and court costs, and is otherwise within the jurisdiction and venue of this Court for the reasons set forth herein. 39. Nguyen realleges Paragraphs 1-28 above, as though more fully set forth herein. 40. In July 2023, Vu made a false statement to Nguyen regarding a material fact that Vu would transfer 30% of his 100% interest in Trendy to Nguyen in exchange for Nguyen causing $300,000 to be placed with Vu – an impossibility since Trendy wasn’t even organized until almost nine months later, which otherwise never occurred. 41. Vu made another false statement to Nguyen regarding a material fact on about July 28, 2023, that he would refund to Nguyen $300,000 if the Trendy venture was unsuccessful. 42. Vu made another false statement to Nguyen regarding a material fact in late September 2023, that the Trendy venture had no revenue and an additional $30,000 was needed, which Nguyen then caused to be provided–when in reality Trendy had no losses. 43. Vu made another false statement when he listed the Trendy venture for sale, and represented himself as the 100% owner. 44. Vu made another false statement to Nguyen regarding a material fact on November 9, 2023, that Vu would pay Nguyen back Nguyen’s entire investment he caused to be placed once Vu sold his drive thru pho restaurant–when Vu in fact later sold his restaurant, never told Nguyen about that sale, and never repaid Nguyen. 45. Vu knew that the statements he made to Nguyen were false when he made them. 46. Vu further made the statements with the contemporaneous intent to not perform under them. 47. Nguyen did not know that the statements Vu made to him were false when Vu made them. 48. Vu intended that Nguyen rely and act on the false statements to tender money to him. 49. Nguyen has caused to be turned over $330,000 to Vu. 50. Vu has repaid merely $6,600 to Nguyen. 51. Nguyen reasonably relied on Vu’s false statements. 52. Nguyen justifiably relied on Vu’s false statements. 53. Nguyen would not have caused to be tendered $330,000 to Vu but for Vu’s false statements. 54. As a direct and proximate cause of Vu’s false statements, Nguyen has been damaged in the amount of $323,400. 55. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been performed, have occurred, or have been waived. Wherefore, Nguyen demands judgment against Vu for: (a) $323,400; (b) prejudgment interest; (c) court costs; (d) making a finding that the funds were “obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud”; and (e) such other relief as this Court deems necessary and proper. Date: February 22, 2026. /s/ Thomas S. Dolney Thomas S. Dolney Florida Bar No.: 34968 Primary: [email protected] Secondary: [email protected] DOLNEY LAW, PLLC 2135 Common Way Rd. Orlando, FL 32814 (352) 359-3606 Attorney for Nguyen
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.