The Gasio Mirror · A Free Press Publication

For Counsel

Five Related Dockets · Pattern · Continuity · Surviving Adjudication
Gasio v. Tran et al. · 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC
For-Counsel · Section IX
Court
OC Superior Court · Dept. C61
Bench Officer
Comm. Carmen D. Snuggs-Spraggins
Posture
Documentary · Allegation Framing
Caption
Gasio v. Tran et al.
Limited Civil · Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiffs
Michael A. Gasio · age 72
Yulia S. Gasio · age 42
Senior LEP Occupant
Tetyana Zvyagintseva · age 65+
Named ¶1.B of 2022 & 2024 leases
Property
19235 Brynn Court
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Landing Executive Brief Jeopardy Matrix Criminal State Civil Federal Civil Damages Evidence Related Cases Authorities Doctrinal Frame Discipline
Related Cases · Pattern · Continuity · Surviving Adjudication

Related Cases

Five related proceedings on the public-court documentary record. The primary matter, Gasio v. Tran et al. Two parallel matters on related properties or family-network defendants. One earlier docket on the same court with the same plaintiff's counsel of record. One surviving appellate adjudication on the strict-compliance pleading question. One federal docket cited for existence only on the FDCPA framework. Each is hyperlinked to its primary-document anchor. Each carries the discipline-lock framing applicable to it.

Five Related Dockets H.J. Inc. Continuity Anchor No Finding Has Been Made

Discipline locks · held throughout this catalog
I

Gasio v. Tran et al. · The Primary Matter

OCSC 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC
Case 01 · Primary matter OCSC 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC

Tran v. Gasio (caption at trial) · Gasio v. Tran et al. (case-file caption)

Court
Orange County Superior Court · Department C61 · Commissioner Carmen D. Snuggs-Spraggins
Case type
Limited Civil · Unlawful Detainer
Filing
July 3, 2024 by Steven D. Silverstein (CA Bar #86466) for plaintiff Phat L.K. Tran
Trial
January 27, 2025 — plaintiff Michael Gasio appeared pro se following Richard J. Rosiak (CA Bar #141430) withdrawal letter delivered Friday January 10, 2025 mailbox for Monday January 13, 2025 noticed trial — three calendar days. Rosiak no-show January 13, 2025.
Disposition
Under Submission Ruling March 27, 2025, Doc ID 74522578. Three discrepancies on face of order: components math $180; principal math $1,000; embedded rate inflation ~$713. Total face-of-order discrepancies: $1,893.
Standing posture
Allegation framing throughout. No finding has been made. Public-court docket. occourts.org
II

Harman v. Tran · Prior Tenancy Same Property Same Counsel

OCSC Dept. C61 · Pattern continuity anchor
Case 02 · Pattern continuity OCSC Dept. C61 · ROA #2, #5, #34

Harman v. Tran · Prior unlawful detainer · same property · same plaintiff's counsel

Court
Orange County Superior Court · Department C61
Case type
Limited Civil · Unlawful Detainer
Property
19235 Brynn Court, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 — same property at issue in Gasio v. Tran et al.
Plaintiff's counsel of record
Steven D. Silverstein (CA Bar #86466) — same counsel as Gasio v. Tran
Document anchor
Certified filings ROA #2, #5, #34 retrieved from OC Superior Court file 4/24/2026, certified copy #01373P, fee $30.14.
Pattern relevance
Provides H.J. Inc. continuity-plus-relationship pattern anchor for civil RICO §1964(c) framework on Counts F-08 through F-10 of federal-civil-counts. Document templates and procedural architecture distributable across cases on the same property by the same counsel suggest pattern within the meaning of H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell (1989) 492 U.S. 229.
Standing posture
Allegation framing. Public-court docket. No finding has been made on the question whether Harman v. Tran and Gasio v. Tran together establish RICO pattern.
III

Huynh v. Tran/Ly · Parallel Civil-Fraud Action

OCSC 30-2025-01502635-CU-FR-CJC
Case 03 · Parallel civil fraud OCSC 30-2025-01502635-CU-FR-CJC

Huynh v. Tran / Ly · Independent civil-fraud action against named defendants

Court
Orange County Superior Court · Department C10 · Judge Nelson
Case type
Civil Unlimited · Fraud (CU-FR-CJC)
Plaintiff
Andrew V. Huynh, represented by ArentFox Schiff
Defendants
Anna Ly (DRE Broker #01894348 — daughter of property owner in Gasio v. Tran) · Anh Andy Quang Tran
Defense counsel
Mike N. Vo APLC for Anna Ly
Filing
Filed August 8, 2025. Cross-complaint filed November 3, 2025. Hearing scheduled April 30, 2026 at 1:30 PM in Department C10.
Pattern relevance
Independent civil-fraud action against named defendant in Gasio v. Tran et al. (Anna Ly). Public-court docket. Provides additional H.J. Inc. continuity data point on the family-network pattern question. Plaintiffs in Gasio v. Tran make no characterization of Huynh v. Tran/Ly on the merits; named here only because the docket is public and the defendants overlap.
Standing posture
Allegation framing. Public-court docket. No finding has been made.
IV

Tran v. Bach · 2018 Docket Overlap · Same Court · Same Counsel

OCSC 30-2018-00982394-CL-UD-CJC
Case 04 · Docket overlap OCSC 30-2018-00982394-CL-UD-CJC

Tran v. Bach · 2018 unlawful detainer · same court, same plaintiff's counsel of record

Court
Orange County Superior Court
Case type
Limited Civil · Unlawful Detainer (same case-type designation CL-UD-CJC as Gasio v. Tran)
Named plaintiff
Thao Thu Tran — co-listed with property owner Phat L.K. Tran on California Secretary of State entity filings; co-titled with Kenneth Krause on Clark County Nevada Recorder records as husband-and-wife joint tenants.
Plaintiff's counsel of record
Steven D. Silverstein (CA Bar #86466) — same counsel as Gasio v. Tran (2024)
Four shared documentary fields
(1) Same court · (2) same case-type designation CL-UD-CJC · (3) same plaintiff's counsel of record by name and Bar number · (4) plaintiff-name surname overlap with documented Secretary of State entity co-listing
Standing posture · Thao Thu Tran framing
Specific familial relationship between Thao Thu Tran and Phat L.K. Tran is not yet established to the level of court-filing or vital-records primary corroboration. Documentary inference is consistent with sibling-network framing. Conservative anchor pending OC Family Law name search and OC Recorder grant-deed chain verification.
Pattern relevance
Together with Harman v. Tran (Case 02) and Gasio v. Tran (Case 01), establishes documentary docket pattern across three separate properties and three separate complainants over six-year span, all represented by the same plaintiff's counsel.
Anchors to portal
V

Attenello v. Basilious · Surviving Adjudicated Finding

OC App. Div. · September 20, 2022 · §1946.2 strict-compliance
Case 05 · Surviving adjudication OC Superior Court Appellate Division

Attenello v. Basilious · Affirmance of dismissal for strict-compliance pleading defect

Court
Orange County Superior Court · Appellate Division
Disposition date
September 20, 2022
Disposition
Appellate Division affirmed trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's eviction action without leave to amend.
Plaintiff's counsel on appeal
Steven D. Silverstein (CA Bar #86466)
Doctrinal holding
The form contract attached to plaintiff's complaint did not satisfy the strict-compliance pleading requirement of California Civil Code §1946.2(b)(1)(K), and plaintiff's complaint did not reflect strict compliance with the statutory notice procedures required of unlawful-detainer plaintiffs under the Tenant Protection Act of 2019.
Controlling authority applied
Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 394-395 — California Supreme Court controlling authority on residential UD strict-compliance pleading framework.
Surviving-adjudication status
This is a public, surviving adjudicated finding. Distinct from Bea-Mone III (no surviving adjudication, judgment set aside). Cited on this page solely on the strict-compliance pleading question against Silverstein-represented plaintiff. Independent of Gasio v. Tran on the merits. The strict-compliance pleading question is also at the center of the present matter.
Standing posture
Cited only on the strict-compliance pleading question. No characterization of motive or pattern by reference to Attenello beyond what the surviving adjudication itself establishes.
Anchors to portal
VI

Bea-Mone III v. Silverstein Attorney at Law · Docket Existence Only

C.D. Cal. 8:17-cv-00550-JLS-DFM · No surviving public adjudication of liability
Case 06 · Docket existence only C.D. Cal. 8:17-cv-00550-JLS-DFM

Bea-Mone III v. Silverstein Attorney at Law · FDCPA docket · cited for existence only

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California · Hon. Josephine L. Staton
Case type
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act — 15 U.S.C. §§1692 et seq.
Jury verdict
November 16, 2018 — Special Verdict returned against defendant. Final Judgment $1,000 entered November 30, 2018.
Appeal
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 19-55356. Defendant noticed appeal March 28, 2019. On October 9, 2019 the Ninth Circuit granted defendant's own motion to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).
Stipulated vacatur
October 15, 2019 stipulation filed in district court. District court entered order setting aside November 30, 2018 judgment and dismissing case with prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was stricken per Order 105 without an award entered on the record.
Surviving-adjudication status
No surviving public adjudication of liability remains in this matter. The November 30, 2018 judgment was set aside on stipulation. Cited on this page for docket existence only.
Doctrinal framework cited
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership (1994) 513 U.S. 18: mootness by reason of settlement does not entitle a losing party to vacatur of an adverse judgment as of right; the public interest in the integrity of the judicial record weighs against erasure of adverse adjudications procured through private settlement. The Bea-Mone vacatur sequence sits within the fact pattern Bancorp addressed.
FDCPA framework relevance
The same FDCPA statutory framework applies on its face to the Three-Day Notice, the alleged refund mailing, and the duplicate payment extracted under written protest in the present matter. Heintz v. Jenkins (1995) 514 U.S. 291 confirms FDCPA reaches attorneys collecting on consumer debts. Federal-civil-counts Counts F-01 through F-04 carry the FDCPA framework into the present matter independently of Bea-Mone.
Standing posture
Cited for docket existence only. No characterization of defendant by reference to Bea-Mone beyond what the docket establishes.
Pattern continuity framework

Cases 02 (Harman), 03 (Huynh), and 04 (Tran v. Bach) together establish documentary continuity across multiple properties, multiple complainants, the family-network defendants, and the same plaintiff's counsel of record over a six-year span. Case 05 (Attenello) is the surviving adjudicated finding on the same strict-compliance pleading question at the center of the present matter. Together with the documentary record on Counts F-08 through F-10 (federal-civil-counts), these dockets carry the H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell (1989) 492 U.S. 229 continuity-plus-relationship pattern framework for civil RICO §1964(c).

Companion pages

Civil RICO framework (Count F-08, F-09, F-10): federal-civil-counts.html. Attenello surviving-adjudication framework: intent.html at gasiomirror.com. Court record on Gasio v. Tran: evidence-index.html Sections X-XI.

Notice to reader · scope and disclaimers

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.

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.

  FOR COUNSEL · DOCUMENTARY HANDOFF PORTAL · ELEVEN PAGES  
Publisher’s Notice

This portal at gasiomirror.com/for-counsel/ is a curated subset of the public case file at gasiomirror.com, prepared and published pro se by the named plaintiff, Michael A. Gasio, for the convenience of reviewing counsel, regulatory examiners, and accredited investigators. The portal indexes the same primary documents preserved in the public case file, organized in the procedural intake format a reviewing partner would expect on a case-handoff folder.

Every entry is reachable from the source document, the agency file number, the bank confirmation, the postal tracking record, or the public court docket on which it rests. Every statute citation is reachable from Cornell Legal Information Institute, Justia, or leginfo.ca.gov. Every case citation is reachable from Justia or the California state-court reporter. No claim on this portal appears without one of those three citation hooks.

The portal carries the standing reservation that no determination of liability has been made by any court or regulatory body on the questions presented. The named persons are entitled to respond to the documentary record on the merits, or to remain silent on the merits and accept the documentary inference that follows from silence. Either election is on the record.

§ Copyright reservation & use restriction

© 2026 Michael A. Gasio. All rights reserved. The contents of this portal — including the structural layout, the count entries, the documentary mappings, the citation index, and the narrative framing — are protected under the United States Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code, §§101 et seq., and under the California Civil Code §§980–989. The portal is intended for mature professional audiences: licensed counsel, regulatory examiners, accredited investigators, court personnel, and reporters of court. Permission for limited fair-use citation in agency submissions, judicial filings, and professional review is presumptively granted on attribution to gasiomirror.com with capture date. Permission for bulk reproduction, derivative-work creation, or commercial use is not granted and must be obtained in writing.

Standing posture on the documentary record

The plaintiff has, throughout the twenty-one months between the August 5, 2024 vacate and the present update of this portal, maintained a documentary posture. The plaintiff has organized, preserved, indexed, and submitted the record. The plaintiff has not threatened. The plaintiff has not extorted. The plaintiff has not retaliated. The plaintiff has prepared a record of what occurred and submitted it to authorities authorized to evaluate it. That posture continues.

Caption
Gasio v. Tran et al.
30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC
Dept. C61 · OCSC
Publisher
Michael A. Gasio · pro se
The Gasio Mirror · gasiomirror.com
Discipline
Documentary record
Allegation framing throughout
No finding has been made
Inquiries