Gasio v. Tran et al. · Case File for Counsel Review
OC Superior Court · No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC · Dept. C61
Actor Profile · Designated Officer · Principal Broker
Dennis Allen Rosas
DRE Broker #00602101 · D.O.: Springdale Marina Inc (#01208606) & Stratton-LFCA Inc (#02211662) · Prior D.O.: Mulhearn Realtors Inc (#00338699)
License ActiveDRE Complaint Filed — April 24, 2026Two Documented Refusals to Investigate

Dennis Allen Rosas

DRE Broker License #00602101 · Licensed since March 7, 1986 · Designated Officer of both corporate licenses Hanson Le has operated under · Personally signed a DRE disciplinary stipulation in January 2021 under the BHHS California Properties DBA · Refused investigation explicitly twice over fourteen months.

“I’m not going to investigate them. If he took something from the office he’s probably moonlighting — they all do it.”
— Dennis Allen Rosas, Designated Officer of Record · Call #1, 2024 · Explicit refusal of statutory supervisory duty · “They all do it” = acknowledgment of systemic supervision failure

License and corporate structure

DRE Broker License
#00602101
Licensed March 7, 1986 · 40+ years in practice
Corporate License 1
Springdale Marina Inc — DRE #01208606
DBA: BHHS California Properties
5848 Edinger Ave, HB 92649
Corporate License 2
Stratton-LFCA Inc — DRE #02211662
DBA: Coldwell Banker Envision (+6 DBAs)
Hanson Le currently attached here
Prior Corporate License
Mulhearn Realtors Inc — DRE #00338699
EXPIRED 09/25/2024
DBA: BHHS California Properties (2014–2024)
Prior DRE Discipline — Personal
H-41672 LA — Public Reproval
Signed by Rosas as D.O. — Jan 5, 2021
Effective: March 4, 2021
§10177(g) negligence under BHHS DBA
3 years before the Gasio lease
DRE Complaint Filed
Formal complaint filed April 24, 2026
Five counts · Companion to Le and Sandoval
Coordinate with PC #1-26-0304-002

The two documented refusals

Rosas Call #1 — 2024 (Omaha-Routed) — Explicit Refusal #1

BHHS Omaha routed Complainant’s complaint to Rosas directly. Rosas called Complainant. When Complainant raised the cashier’s check interception and asked whether Le had a connection to Thao Tran, Rosas responded (Complainant’s contemporaneous recollection):

“I’ve known Hanson personally. I’ve worked with him for many years. The man’s been married sixteen years. He wouldn’t do anything like this. I’m not going to investigate them. If he took something from the office he’s probably moonlighting — they all do it. He’s a good guy.”

Legal significance: (1) “I’m not going to investigate” is an explicit refusal of the §10159.2 supervisory duty. (2) “They all do it” acknowledges a known, tolerated pattern — systemic supervision failure under §10177(h). (3) Rosas deflected the Thao Tran question rather than denying the connection.

Rosas Call #2 — February 3, 2025, 12:55 PM PST — During Active Trial — Self-Corroborated

Trial in three-week recess. Rosas called back and opened: “I spoke to you a year ago” — independently corroborating Call #1 from his own mouth.

Complainant: “You need to get a hold of Silverstein. He’s waving around a Berkshire contract that you got the payment for.”

Rosas: “Short — I told you last year, no investigation of Hanson. Goodbye.”

Legal significance: Call #2 occurs during active litigation in which Springdale Marina Inc’s own instrument was being used as evidence of non-payment. Rosas was told the brokerage held the payment and refused to contact eviction counsel. Refusal during active proceedings is alleged within 18 U.S.C. §1512(b).

Alleged charges — five counts

Count IFailure to Supervise — Two Documented RefusalsB&P §10177(h) · B&P §10159.2

Rosas received direct verbal notice of the cashier’s check interception in 2024 and again February 3, 2025. Both times he explicitly refused to investigate.

AnchorSignificance
Rosas Call #1 (2024)“I’m not going to investigate them. They all do it.” Explicit refusal. Admission of systemic supervision failure.
Rosas Call #2 (Feb 3, 2025)“I told you last year, no investigation of Hanson.” Self-corroborates both calls. During active trial. §1512(b) predicate.
Count IIDesignated Officer Supervisory LiabilityB&P §10159.2

Rosas is the Designated Officer of both corporate licenses Le has operated under. Le never left the Rosas-supervised umbrella. Every violation by Le — trust fund routing, dual agency non-disclosure, post-detachment check handling — occurred under Rosas’s §10159.2 personal supervisory obligation.

Count IIIPrior Discipline — 30-Year Pattern of NegligenceB&P §10177(d) · B&P §10177(g)
CaseDateViolationRosas Role
H-24243 LAAug 6, 199130-day suspension (stayed). Trust fund interest collection by employee; fictitious name.Same corporate entity lineage
H-28384 LAOct 4, 200045-day suspension (stayed). Trust account overage $45,390.92; shortage; missing records; non-licensee signatories. §§10145(a), 10177(d), 10177(h). Full evidentiary hearing.§10177(h) charged against D.O. — same statute now applicable to Rosas
H-41672 LAMar 4, 2021Public reproval. Unlicensed MLO activity. Substantial misrepresentation §10176(a). Negligence §10177(g). Fine: $5,018.71. MRI presented itself as loan originator while routing borrowers to affiliated unlicensed entity — same structural pattern as Gasio.ROSAS PERSONALLY SIGNED the stipulation Jan 5, 2021 as D.O. of Mulhearn Realtors Inc (BHHS DBA active). Personal admission of §10177(g) negligence under BHHS brand — three years before Gasio lease.
Count IVBranch Manager Notice — Sandoval Knowledge ChainB&P §10159.2 · Cal. Civ. Code §1942.5

On July 4, 2024, Branch Manager Angie Sandoval (DRE #01130478) at 5848 Edinger received a personal cell text from Complainant stating he had just left HBPD and was a fraud victim using BHHS credentials. Sandoval’s actual notice as branch manager at the check delivery address flows up to Rosas as Designated Officer under §10159.2. The UD proceeding continued to trial.

Count VDual Corporate DBA AnomalyB&P §10177(g)

BHHS California Properties DBA ran under both Mulhearn Realtors Inc (#00338699, active through Sept 26, 2024) and Springdale Marina Inc (#01208606) simultaneously during 2024, both under Rosas as Designated Officer. A tenant signing a BHHS-branded lease in April 2024 could not have determined which entity’s trust account obligations applied. Neither maintained a trust account for the Gasio tenancy.

Primary sources

Scope and allegation standard. All characterizations of conduct are allegations based on primary-source documentary evidence. No determination of liability has been made by any court or regulatory body.

Notice to reader · scope and disclaimers

This site is a public-interest case file assembled and published by Michael A. Gasio, plaintiff pro se in Gasio v. Tran et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC. The plaintiff is not an attorney. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice.

Every factual assertion is drawn from primary documents — executed contracts, bank records, emails, text messages, court filings, public licensing records, and public-records directory entries — preserved in the case file and referenced by source and date.

No statement on this site should be read as a determination that any named person has committed a crime, violated a statute, or breached a professional duty. Those determinations are reserved to qualified counsel, regulatory agencies, and the courts.

This publication is made in the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution, California Civil Code § 47(d), and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.