Phat L.K. Tran D.M.D.

Tran’s own text — “Hanson has the check” — is a written admission that he knew the cashier’s check had been delivered and was in Le’s possession. Tran texted Le during the cure window, establishing coordination during the period when the tenant had a statutory right to cure. The eviction then proceeded on a non-payment allegation while Tran knew the payment had been tendered.

Tran continued the eviction proceeding with actual knowledge — established by his own text — that the alleged rent deficiency had been cured by the tendered cashier’s check. Continuing a legal proceeding to compel payment already received against a 72-year-old disabled tenant wearing a cardiac monitor is examined within Cal. PC § 518 and the federal Hobbs Act. Tran’s own written statement that he evicted Gasio because “he never raised the rent” establishes retaliatory rather than legitimate financial motive.

Michael Gasio, age 72, wearing a cardiac monitor, was wrongfully evicted and compelled to relocate. Tran had three years of direct knowledge of Gasio’s age. Documented losses exceed $87,000. Financial elder abuse under PC § 368 carries up to four years in state prison when property taken exceeds $950. The security deposit was deposited by Tran, claimed to have been returned, and never received by Gasio. No segregated trust account was maintained.

Tran stated in his own writing that he evicted Gasio because “he never raised the rent.” This is a documented economic motive for terminating a below-market tenancy to achieve market-rate Airbnb conversion. Gasio’s May 28, 2024 USPS four-package mailing and habitability complaint to the HB City Attorney triggered the Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5 180-day retaliatory eviction presumption.

Tran’s August 11, 2024 text — “Hanson has the check” — is a written admission that the cashier’s check was held by Le during the eviction proceeding. If Tran’s sworn court testimony characterized the payment in a manner inconsistent with this written admission, that inconsistency is examined within Cal. PC § 118. The court’s March 27, 2025 minute order acknowledges the tender, providing the evidentiary baseline against which trial testimony is measured.

Tran presented Gasio with a dishwasher repair bill dated the month before Gasio moved in. Gasio paid $350 cooperatively. This established a pattern of billing for pre-tenancy damage — a pattern culminating in the LY Construction invoice for $7,900 dated 18 days after the city inspector’s clearance report confirmed clean carpets and no pet damage.

In October 2025, following commencement of regulatory filings, Tran transferred 20012 Sand Dune Lane — held personally for 21 years 11 months — to Smart Invest HB LLC, a Delaware entity with no HB business license and no STR permit. The transfer timing, use of an offshore-registered entity, and the absence of required local licensing are examined against the badges of fraudulent transfer under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04.

The Three-Day Notice was taped to the front door on Friday evening, June 21, 2024. Within hours, the plaintiff telephoned Tran. Tran initially confirmed the Notice and asserted nonpayment. Tran then contacted Hanson Le to verify. The next day, Saturday June 22, 2024, Tran sent the plaintiff the following text: “Hi Michael, sorry I did nt know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account, I just texted him to find out. You mentioned about the 67k contract, I got confused about this part. Hanson told me that you did nt want to sign the new lease and I dont [re]ceive the payment so I sent...” The text was received during the statutory three-day cure window. Tran admits, in writing: (i) he did not know rent had been paid to the broker’s account; (ii) he was confused by the contract terms; (iii) the broker had falsely told him the plaintiff did not wish to sign the new lease; (iv) he caused the Notice to be sent based on the broker’s false report that no payment had been received. The unlawful detainer complaint was filed twelve days later, July 3, 2024, with no disclosure to the Court of this admission.

The Move Out Clearance Report (DocuSign Envelope F5D247C2-A1A9-4991-B91F-6A333347A87D) was executed on August 5, 2024 by Anna Ly. The form contains a pre-printed line for “Attorney Fees.” On that line: $2,005, deducted from the security deposit before any court adjudication of attorney fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(b) enumerates four categories of permitted security-deposit deductions: unpaid rent, cleaning, damages beyond ordinary wear and tear, and restoration of the unit. Attorney fees are not among them. A pre-printed line on a property-management form does not amend the Civil Code. The deduction is unlawful on the face of the form. Lease Section 36 caps attorney fees and costs collectively at $1,000; the $2,005 deduction exceeds the contractual cap by $1,005. Statutory damages under § 1950.5(l) for bad-faith retention may be up to twice the deposit amount in addition to actual damages.

The Move Out Clearance Report charged $7,835 for “Replace carpet due to dog pee bad smell, attached invoice.” The supporting invoice — Ly Construction Invoice #2412 — is dated August 14, 2024 — nine days after the Move Out Clearance Report was executed. The invoice that supposedly supported the deduction did not exist when the deduction was made. Further, the invoice does not bill for carpet replacement: it bills for vinyl flooring ($1,900 material 950 sqft @ $2/sqft + $2,175 install + $322 stairnose material + $1,540 stairnose installation + $800 baseboard). The unit was upgraded with new flooring at the departing tenant’s expense, billed to the tenant as carpet damage. Vendor: Ly Construction (License #1068334, Bond #GCL5928963), salesperson Dave Ly (apparent relative of Anna Ly), payable to David Ly, 9142 Russell Ave, Garden Grove CA 92844.

Statutory ceiling analysis under California Civil Code § 1950.5(b)(2): The carpet area to be replaced is approximately 790 sqft; market cost basis for builder-grade carpet of the type alleged is $0.88/sqft, yielding a basis of approximately $695.20. After three years of ordinary tenancy, the depreciated chargeable ceiling under IRS five-year and HUD seven-year useful-life schedules is $278.08 to $396.26, and only upon documented damage beyond ordinary wear and tear. Invoice #2412 charged $7,837 — a multiple of approximately 20× to 28× over the statutory ceiling and approximately 11.27× cost basis. The invoice further bills 950 sqft of vinyl — 160 sqft beyond the original carpet footprint — a documentary indicator that the charge extended to areas and surfaces not previously carpeted. Conversion to a different and higher-grade material is, in any event, a property upgrade barred from charge against a departing tenant under settled California betterment doctrine.

Following the March 27, 2025 Under Submission Ruling, opposing counsel of record (Steven D. Silverstein, CA Bar #86466) transmitted to the plaintiff, by United States certified mail, a document titled “(PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT.” The document is captioned in the Superior Court for the State of California, recites the case number, names the assigned commissioner, recites the trial submission date, and sets forth findings of $4,325 + $500 + $500 = $5,325 in the format of a court order. The signature line for the judge is blank. The date line is blank. The document was never signed by any judge of the Superior Court of California. The transmission was for collection purposes. The plaintiff paid the demanded sum on April 22, 2025 by Wells Fargo cashier’s check #0084412016 in the amount of $5,338.48 (demanded sum plus statutory interest). 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(9) prohibits the use or distribution of any written communication that simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court. Cal. PC § 115 reaches the offering of a false instrument. Tran is alleged to be jointly liable on a respondeat superior theory for collection conduct undertaken on his behalf by counsel of record.

The plaintiff issued Wells Fargo cashier’s check #0084412016 on April 22, 2025 in the amount of $5,338.48 in response to the certified-mail transmission of the unsigned (PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT. The plaintiff named on the face of the instrument both PHAT K. TRAN and STEVEN D. SILVERSTEIN as joint payees. Memo line: “DUPLICATE JUL 24 RENT/PAID UNDER PROTEST.” Mailed UPS Express tracking #1Z6017R6803685099A1 from The UPS Store #4415, Huntington Beach. Whatever subsequently became of the instrument — whether endorsed and deposited by Tran alone, by Silverstein alone, by both jointly, or declined and returned — entered the documentary record by operation of the joint-payee structure. Wells Fargo’s processing record is preserved and reachable by subpoena.

Approximately three years before the present matter, the prior tenant of 19235 Brynn Court was evicted from the property by the same landlord, on behalf of the same eviction counsel of record. The prior tenant’s rent at the time of her eviction was approximately $3,600 per month. The Gasio family moved in 30 days later (May 1, 2022) at $5,000 per month. The property was a mess at move-in. Two years and two months later (July 2024), the Gasios were evicted by the same eviction counsel on behalf of the same landlord. The property was then converted to short-term Airbnb operation at $7,786 per month base rate. Cumulative escalation across the three-year sequence: prior tenant ~$3,600 → Gasios $5,000–$5,350 → Airbnb $7,786 — approximately 122% increase from the original baseline. Each rate increase was achieved by clearing the prior occupant and re-listing within 30 days. The 30-day turnaround between one eviction and the next move-in is the operational signature of a rent-extraction model rather than property repositioning, repair hold, or owner-occupancy transition.

The April 26, 2024 lease required gardener service as part of contracted property maintenance. The homeowners’ association at 19235 Brynn Court mandated yard maintenance as a condition of property compliance. Mid-tenancy, the landlord stopped paying for the gardener service. The HOA approached the plaintiff directly, gave him a push mower, and told him that since he lived at the property, he should take care of the yard. The HOA delegated the maintenance obligation directly to the tenant because the landlord had defaulted on it. Plaintiff alleges, based on communication with an HOA representative, that Tran was at that time approximately one year in arrears on his HOA dues; the HOA records are subpoenable and the representative is a witness. A landlord alleged to be delinquent on HOA dues, while raising rent on his tenants by 7%, engaging a property manager who routed rent to a personal Wells Fargo account, and filing an unlawful detainer for nonpayment of the very rent the tenants had documented in writing they had paid, supports a financial-pressure inference for review. The HOA records are subpoenable. The HOA representative who handed the plaintiff the push mower is a witness.

19235 Brynn Court is currently being marketed and operated as a short-term rental on Airbnb (listing 1271731093119339551, “Live the beach life in Huntington Beach city 31+”). Listed by “Vui” (Hosted by Vui · 7 years hosting). Base rate $7,786 monthly, exclusive of cleaning fees, service charges, occupancy taxes, and per-stay surcharges. The property is in Zone 1 (all areas of Huntington Beach excluding Sunset Beach). Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.120 prohibits unhosted short-term rentals in Zone 1. Only hosted/owner-occupied STRs are permitted, requiring the owner to live at the property and remain on-site during the guest’s stay. Tran does not live at 19235 Brynn Court. The listing is unhosted by definition (“Entire home in Huntington Beach”). The listing displays no City-issued STR permit number, as required by HBMC § 5.120. Each day of operation is a separate violation. Penalty: $1,000 per violation. Three violations within 12 months triggers permit revocation. HOA CC&R compliance is also required for any STR operation; the Brynn Court HOA is a documentary witness on this point as well.

The California Secretary of State maintains the public filing history for Phat L Tran, DMD, Inc., a California professional dental corporation formed December 18, 2012 under California Corporations Code § 13400 et seq. The Articles of Incorporation, signed by Lucia Navarro as incorporator and filed December 18, 2012, identify the entity as a professional corporation organized to engage in the profession of dentistry. Principal address of record: 14411 Brookhurst Street, Suite B, Garden Grove, CA 92843. Agent for service of process of record: Phat L Tran, 20012 Sand Dune Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2644. Authorized capitalization: 10,000 shares of a single class of stock.

As a dental corporation, the entity is subject to California Business and Professions Code §§ 1801–1808. Section 1804 provides that each director, shareholder, and officer of a dental corporation, except as provided in California Corporations Code § 13403 (assistant officers), shall be a licensed person within the meaning of California Corporations Code § 13401.

Filing history of record (Entity No. 3530584):

Officers and directors of record — Statement of Information dated 5/6/2014 (CA SOS file stamp EY31161):

Documentary observation. Across the period December 18, 2012 through May 1, 2026, the public filing history reflects five separate Statement-of-Information delinquency entries (2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, and the current uncured cycle commencing 12/31/2022), two penalty-certification entries (2014, 2015), and one pending-suspension entry (2016). The Statement of Information presently due on the entity carries a due date of December 31, 2022 and is not filed of record as of May 1, 2026, a period of approximately three years and four months. The 5/6/2014 Statement of Information — the first cured filing following the entity’s initial delinquency cycle — identifies Phat L Tran as the corporation’s sole Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, and sole Director, with no authorized board vacancies, and identifies no other natural person as officer, director, or agent of the corporation. The 11/15/2021 filing is the most recent Statement of Information of record; the officer and director composition reflected on that filing is a separate matter of record and is not summarized on this page.

The observation on this page is limited to what the Secretary of State’s public filing history reflects. No characterization of intent, motive, or coordinated purpose is supplied. No agency file presently before any reviewing body is identified on this page as concerning the corporate compliance posture of Phat L Tran, DMD, Inc. No determination of liability appears on this record.