Minute Order Analysis — March 27, 2025 — 7 Reversible Errors

Court Record — Minute Order — Event ID 74522578

Official Record

OC Superior Court — Minute Order — March 27, 2025 — Gasio v. Tran et al.

Event ID: 74522578 | Dept C61 | Commissioner Carmen D. Snuggs-Spraggins

Case NamePhat L.K. Tran v. Michael Gasio — No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC

Trial DateFebruary 25, 2025 — Non-Jury Trial

Submission DateFebruary 25, 2025 — Taken Under Submission

Ruling DateMarch 27, 2025

PlaintiffPhat L.K. Tran — represented by Steven D. Silverstein Esq. #86466

DefendantMichael Gasio — SELF REPRESENTED (Pro Se) — Rosiak withdrew Jan 10, 2025 — 3 days before original trial date Jan 13

Court FindingJudgment for Plaintiff — $4,325.00 + $500 attorney fees + $500 court costs = $5,325 total

Judgment StatusTitled "(PROPOSED)" — date line BLANK — may never have been signed or entered

Plaintiff AttorneySilverstein — last trial question: "Did you cash the check?" — Answer: NO

Exhibits — Admitted at Trial — February 25, 2025

Exhibit Log — Defendant Exhibits Admitted — Minute Order Record

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION STATUS RULING ADDRESS

J Defendant exhibit — admitted ✓ ADMITTED Addressed in ruling

K Tran's June 25, 2024 confession texts — "I want you to default on it — secretly keep paying me the new amount" ✓ ADMITTED ⚠ NEVER ADDRESSED IN RULING

L Defendant exhibit — admitted ✓ ADMITTED Addressed in ruling

M Defendant exhibit — admitted ✓ ADMITTED Addressed in ruling

N Defendant exhibit — admitted ✓ ADMITTED Addressed in ruling

O Defendant exhibit — admitted ✓ ADMITTED Addressed in ruling

P Michael's letter to the court ⚠ MARKED — NOT ADMITTED Excluded from record

Q Defendant exhibit — admitted ✓ ADMITTED Addressed in ruling

Key Testimony — Michael Gasio — On the Record — February 25, 2025

"No one ever contacted me. I could have picked it up in 15 minutes or issued a new one."

Michael A. Gasio — Testifying Pro Se — OC Superior Court Dept C61 — February 25, 2025 — Re: Cashier's Check Sitting at BHHS Office

SILVERSTEIN'S LAST QUESTION AT TRIAL

"Did you cash the check?"

Steven D. Silverstein — Final Question to Defendant — Answer: NO — Check sealed — Forensic prints pending — Both Silverstein and Tran subsequently signed acknowledging no prior repayment occurred

The Nuclear Fact — Cashier's Check Issued 25 Days Before Three-Day Notice Was Served

Error 1 — Dispositive

The Default Never Legally Existed

The cashier's check was issued at Wells Fargo Branch #0000844 on May 28, 2024 at 2:20 PM — Transaction #213 0246 — for $4,338.48. It was sent via USPS certified mail and signed for at BHHS by "H.H." (Hanson Le, DRE #01358448) on May 30, 2024.

The Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit was not served until June 22, 2024 — 25 days after the check was already tendered and received.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure §1161, an unlawful detainer may only be filed after a valid three-day notice expires on an existing default. There was no default on May 28 — the check was tendered. There was no default on May 30 — the check was received and signed for. There was no default on June 22 — the notice came 25 days after tender.

The three-day notice was served into a nonexistent default. The UD action that followed was built on a legal nullity. The court's ruling did not address why a cashier's check tendered and received 25 days before the notice does not cure any alleged default. CCP §1161 — Unlawful detainer requires actual default — tender within cure period extinguishes the obligation · CC §1511 — Performance prevented by creditor's act excuses the obligation

Seven Reversible Errors — March 27, 2025 Ruling

1 CHECK PRE-DATES NOTICE BY 25 DAYS — COURT NEVER ADDRESSED Dispositive

Cashier's check for $4,338.48 issued May 28, 2024 — received at BHHS May 30 — Three-day notice served June 22, 2024. The court found a valid three-day notice and default without addressing the fact that tender predated the notice by 25 days. If the check was tendered before the notice, no default existed when the notice was served. The ruling is silent on this arithmetic.

CCP §1161 · CC §1511 · CC §1947 — Tender before notice = no default = no valid UD

2 NO CONTACT MADE — TESTIMONY ON RECORD — IGNORED Testimonial Error

Michael testified on the record: "No one ever contacted me. I could have picked it up in 15 minutes or issued a new one." The cashier's check sat at the BHHS office — signed for by Hanson Le on May 30 — and no one called, texted, or emailed Michael to tell him it was there. Hanson Le subsequently invoked the Fifth Amendment and could not be questioned. The ruling does not address the total failure to notify the tenant that payment was available for pickup.

CC §1511 — Creditor's failure to notify of available payment excuses further obligation — Evidence Code §780 — credibility of testimony

3 EXHIBIT K ADMITTED — CONFESSION TEXTS — NEVER ADDRESSED IN RULING Evidence Error

Exhibit K — Tran's June 25, 2024 confession texts — was admitted into evidence by the court. The texts show Tran stating: "I want you to default on it — secretly keep paying me the new amount... if you don't speak English run this through Google." This is direct written evidence that the default was manufactured by design. The March 27 ruling does not mention, analyze, or address Exhibit K in any way. An admitted exhibit that directly establishes fraudulent intent was silently ignored.

Evidence Code §410 — Court must consider all admitted evidence · CCP §632 — Statement of decision must address controverted issues

4 JULY WIRE PAYMENT — $5,350 SENT JUNE 28 — FIVE DAYS BEFORE UD FILED — IGNORED Payment Error

Wells Fargo wire transfer of $5,350.00 sent June 28, 2024 — memo: "Unknown Contract for July payment 27 of 37 on contracts" — confirmed by bank records. Silverstein filed the UD on July 3, 2024 — five days later. The court was told July rent was unpaid. The bank record proves July was wired before the UD was even filed. Silverstein then personally collected a second July payment through the protest check. The ruling does not address the June 28 wire or explain why a payment sent before the lawsuit was filed does not constitute payment of July rent.

CC §1947 — Rent obligation discharged by payment · PC §484 — False pretense · 18 U.S.C. §1343 — Wire fraud

5 CC §1942.5 RETALIATORY EVICTION — UD FILED 36 DAYS AFTER HABITABILITY COMPLAINT — NOT ANALYZED Retaliation Error

Formal habitability complaint filed with HB City Attorney on May 28, 2024. Silverstein filed the UD on July 3, 2024 — exactly 36 days later. CC §1942.5 creates a 180-day rebuttable presumption of retaliation when an eviction follows a habitability complaint. The ruling does not address the 36-day timeline or the §1942.5 presumption. The court was presented with this defense and the ruling is silent on it.

CC §1942.5(h) — 180-day rebuttable presumption of retaliation · CC §1942.5(d) — Affirmative defense to unlawful detainer

6 THREE-YEAR MOLD / HABITABILITY DEFENSE — CC §1941 — NOT ADDRESSED Habitability Error

Move-in day mold photos sent to Tran on May 1, 2022. Tran's own contractor issued a written report in summer 2023: "It is bad." Full contractor confirmation: "The whole kitchen wall is rotten and needs to be torn out." Three years of documented notice — zero repairs. Under CC §1941, a landlord cannot evict a tenant for nonpayment while the premises are in an uninhabitable condition. The ruling does not address whether the property was habitable or whether Tran fulfilled his §1941 duties. The habitability defense was raised and ignored.

CC §1941 — Landlord's duty of habitability · CC §1942 — Tenant's right to repair and deduct · Health & Safety §17920.3 — Substandard dwelling

7 PRO SE DEFENDANT — ATTORNEY WITHDREW 3 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL — DUE PROCESS Due Process

Richard Rosiak Esq. sent his withdrawal letter on January 10, 2025 — three days before the originally set trial date of January 13, 2025. The case was eventually tried on February 25, 2025 with Michael appearing self-represented. Rosiak falsely claimed re-entry into the case "not legally permitted" — this has been confirmed as false under California procedure. A tenant forced to appear pro se in an unlawful detainer — the fastest civil proceeding in California — after last-minute attorney abandonment, against a represented plaintiff with a volume eviction attorney, is a fundamental due process concern. The ruling does not address the circumstances of the defendant's pro se status.

Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362 — Attorney withdrawal · Due Process Clause — 14th Amendment · CCP §473(b) — Relief from judgment based on attorney fault

The Check Exceeds the Judgment — Tender Was Legally Sufficient

Cashier's Check $4,338.48 — Proposed Judgment $4,325.00 — Difference: $13.48

The proposed judgment amount is $4,325.00. The cashier's check issued on May 28, 2024 was for $4,338.48 — exceeding the judgment by $13.48. This means that even under the court's own finding of what was owed, the May 28 cashier's check — tendered 25 days before the three-day notice — was sufficient to satisfy the obligation in full. The check was not too small. The check was not refused. It was received, signed for, held, and never deposited or returned — while Tran told the court it was never paid. The cashier's check remains sealed and will be submitted for forensic fingerprint analysis in criminal proceedings.

Relief Available — CCP §473(b) — Appeal — Writ of Mandate

CCP §473(b)

Relief From Judgment — Attorney Fault

CCP §473(b) provides mandatory relief from judgment when the judgment was caused by attorney mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Rosiak's withdrawal three days before trial — after falsely claiming re-entry was "not legally permitted" — directly caused Michael to appear pro se in a proceeding he could not have been reasonably expected to navigate alone against a volume eviction attorney. A motion under §473(b) attached to Rosiak's declaration of fault or an attorney affidavit of fault would require the court to grant relief. CCP §473(b) — Mandatory relief when attorney affidavit of fault filed · 6-month deadline from entry of judgment · Rosiak's State Bar proceeding is open — disciplinary findings may support the motion

Appeal / Writ

Statement of Decision — Unanswered Issues

Under CCP §632, a party may request a Statement of Decision requiring the court to address all principal controverted issues. The March 27 ruling is silent on: the cashier's check timeline, Exhibit K, the July wire, the §1942.5 retaliation defense, and the habitability defense. A writ of mandate can compel a trial court to issue a statement of decision addressing all controverted issues that were raised. The proposed judgment — titled "(PROPOSED)" with a blank date line — raises questions about whether it was ever formally entered, which affects the appeal deadline calculation. CCP §632 — Statement of decision · CCP §904.1 — Appeal from judgment · CCP §1085 — Writ of mandate · CCP §917.4 — Stay pending appeal