Court
OC Superior Court · Dept. C61
Each question presented in this matter, matched to the primary document that addresses it. Designators are master-index numbers (EX-###) resolved in Department C; the Outstanding column carries the TBA designator for any record not yet in custody. Every characterization is an allegation; no finding has been made.
| No. | Question presented | Primary instruments | Custodian of original | Outstanding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Was rent of record paid across the 2022–2024 tenancy? | EX-008 sixteen-wire ledger · EX-009 4/19/2024 $5,000 wire, memo “New lease 24 one payment at 5000” · EX-010 owner SMS same day acknowledging the wire | Wells Fargo N.A.; carrier records | TBA-2 Dept. C61 trial record (audio requests EAR-1976 / EAR-2027 pending) |
| 02 | Was a full cure tendered inside the notice window, and what became of it? | EX-015 cashier’s check #0084411044 $4,338.48 · EX-016 USPS 9534914882764149935944 delivered 5/30/2024, signed “H H” · EX-018 owner SMS re the broker account | Wells Fargo N.A.; USPS | T-B custody-interval endpoint ruling; until ruled: “more than two months, no endorsement” |
| 03 | Was a duplicate payment extracted during the dispute, and how was it disposed of? | EX-019 6/28/2024 $5,350 wire during the cure window, memo of protest · EX-034 joint-payee check #0084412016, DUPLICATE JUL 24 RENT / PAID UNDER PROTEST, negotiated with both endorsements, UPS 1Z6017R6803685099A1 | Wells Fargo N.A.; UPS | T-A WF deposit-item record — subpoena target; depositing account never asserted |
| 04 | Is the Three-Day Notice valid on its face, and who authored it? | EX-017 notice of 6/21/2024 — unsigned, directs payment to a personal account; DocuSign sender/originator fields of record | DocuSign Inc. | TBA-5 pre-execution written LEP notice |
| 05 | Is the April 26, 2024 lease what it was said to be? | EX-012 voided envelope BF76EC2B · EX-013/EX-089 executed Authentisign 46CC8725 with owner-signed $6,375-received table and personal-account rent channel · EX-014 broker text “to me instead of to the owner” | Authentisign / DocuSign Inc. | T-E optical read of reserved SMS exhibit EX-094 |
| 06 | How were the 2022 move-in funds directed and recorded? | EX-003 4/23/2022 email designating the owner’s personal account for wire · EX-004 first wire $1,000 · EX-091 first-contact thread, dogs disclosed at inception · EX-090 surrounding thread (vault; withheld — account identifiers) | Yahoo / plaintiff archive; Wells Fargo N.A. | — |
| 07 | Does the eviction fall inside the §1942.5 protected window? | EX-045 DRE complaint of 5/12/2024 (conf. 4355260266) · habitability series and 5/28/2024 City Attorney complaint (HAB series) · EX-020 7/27/2024 city inspector report · UD filed 7/3/2024 (docket; EX-032/EX-035) | CA DRE; City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Clerk | TBA-4 court-filed verifications + 1/21/2025 Substitution of Attorney |
| 08 | Do the move-out claims survive the documents that precede them? | EX-021 Move-Out Clearance Report F5D247C2, $2,005 attorney-fee line, $14,548 claimed · EX-022 blank template, same envelope ID · EX-023 Invoice #2412 $7,835 carpet · EX-020 inspector: no pet damage, 18 days earlier | DocuSign Inc.; CSLB; City of HB | — |
| 09 | What does the post-judgment instrument chain show? | EX-032 minute order 3/27/2025 (Doc ID 74522578) · EX-033 voided clerk’s check #0084411978 · EX-034 joint-payee check · EX-093 (proposed) amended judgment | OCSC Clerk; Wells Fargo N.A. | T-D EX-093 certified-mail transmission record; TBA-2 trial record |
| 10 | What happened to the property after the tenancy ended? | EX-040 October 2025 transfer of the owner’s former residence parcel to a Delaware LLC (CA File #B20250360378) — Civ. Code §3439.04 badge chain, presented as recorded fact | OC Recorder; CA Secretary of State | — |
| 11 | Is there a pattern of related dockets? | EX-036 prior-tenant UD, same property and counsel, 2021 (docket fact only; ROA #2/#5/#34 certified copies in custody) · EX-037 2018 family-network docket · EX-044 2025 fraud matter, Dept. C10, same family network | OCSC Clerk | T-C Harman ROA substance extraction — until extracted, docket existence only, motive unstated; TBA-7 appellate-division disposition copy |
| 12 | What does the counsel-conduct documentary set contain? | EX-022 publicly distributed move-out template · EX-043 archived web captures of the firm’s published forms and guidance · EX-034 joint-payee instrument | Internet Archive; Wells Fargo N.A. | T-A deposit-item record |
| 13 | Where does each referral stand? | EX-045 DRE files (one closed, examiner of record; one at pre-complaint intake) · EX-046 HBPD file AI 26-0003 · EX-041 multi-agency certified mailing sets · EX-042 5/11/2026 District Attorney referral mailing, certified, delivered | CA DRE; HBPD; USPS | — |
Each row is independently testable: pull the EX designator in Department C (documents.html), confirm the custodian, and read the instrument. Where the Outstanding column carries a designator, the record is incomplete on that point by design — the file states what the documents show and stops. The two highlighted rows (02, 07) carry the cure-tender chain and the retaliation window, the two questions on which the documentary record is densest.
Rows concerning licensed professionals are presented under the standing framework: regulatory matters are identified by file number and stage; no finding has been made on any of them. The Anna Ly DRE matter (#1-24-0513-010) is closed with a notice question unresolved; the Hanson Le DRE matter (#1-26-0304-002) is at pre-complaint intake; both State Bar matters are at formal review. Stage descriptions are status, not outcome.
Several instruments in this crosswalk were held, sealed, or left unanswered by their recipients. Under Cal. Evid. Code §913, no adverse inference is drawn from silence or from any claim of privilege. Where this file offers an inference at all — as with the economics of holding a cure instrument rather than negotiating it — the inference is documentary and economic, offered for the reviewing authority’s evaluation, and asserts no person’s state of mind as proven.
This portal 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 portal 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. Every characterization is an allegation.
No statement on this portal 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. No finding has been made. Under Cal. Evid. Code §913, no adverse inference is to be drawn from any party’s silence or from any claim of privilege.
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.