The pre-litigation instrument is a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, served at 19235 Brynn Court on November 2, 2021 at 10:30 AM by Anna Tran Ly. The notice and its companion declaration of service carry two facial defects.

Form selection. The notice is California Association of Realtors Form PRQ, Revised October 2021. The form’s printed header reads, in pertinent part: “FOR RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES IF THE TENANT IS NOT A NATURAL PERSON, OR COMMERCIAL TENANCIES,” followed by the express directive: “For residential tenancies with a tenant who is a natural person and for rent due before March 31, 2022, use form PRQ-TP-3 or PRQ-CRP, or both.” The prior tenant is a natural person residential tenant; the rent demand falls within the period the form’s own face directs to PRQ-TP-3 or PRQ-CRP. The form used contains none of the Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1179.10(a) rental-assistance program contact information mandated for natural-person residential tenants during the recovery period.

Service-method declaration. The Declaration of Service of Notice (DocuSign Envelope EAB29F18-47AF-4C6D-9ABE-6A7177791D80, executed Newport Beach, December 10, 2021) carries all three service-method boxes checked simultaneously — personal service, substituted service, and post-and-mail. The form’s own instruction directly above the boxes states: “To comply with state law, service attempts must be done in the following order: A, then B, then C.” The statutory framework at Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1162 and 1162.1 treats these methods as a sequence of alternatives, not as simultaneous methods. The declaration as filed recites all three as performed on a single service event.

Six instruments were electronically filed in a single transaction at 10:41:21 AM on December 22, 2021, three days before Christmas Day: the Civil Cover Sheet (ROA #3), the Complaint (ROA #2, Judicial Council Form UD-100), the Plaintiff’s Mandatory Cover Sheet (ROA #4, Form UD-101), the Verification by Landlord Regarding Rental Assistance (ROA #5, Form UD-120), and the Summons (ROA #6). The case was assigned to Commissioner Robert F. Kohler in Department C61 the same day.

The certification regime under the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1179.01 et seq., is triggered on the face of the UD-101. The plaintiff affirmatively certified YES at item 3a (nonpayment of rent or other financial obligation due between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2022) and at item 3b (tenancy initially established before October 1, 2021), thereby activating the full § 1179.11 application-and-certification regime. Three documentary tensions follow.

Item 3c(2)(c). The plaintiff certified, under penalty of perjury: “Plaintiff has not received a communication from the defendant that defendant has applied for governmental rental assistance to cover the rent or other financial obligations demanded from the defendant in this action.” The defendant’s sworn declaration filed five weeks later in the same case (ROA #15, MC-025 Attachment 3w, executed under penalty of perjury January 25, 2022) recites: “I again notified the plaintiff that I had applied for COVID-19 rental assistance on November 30th.” Both statements are made under penalty of perjury and reside in the same court file.

Item 10a. The plaintiff certified that the underlying three-day notice “included the name, website address, and phone number of the governmental rental assistance program for the locality in which the property at issue is located, as well as all other content required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1179.10.” The notice is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 2. The notice contains none of the § 1179.10(a) content. The certification at item 10a and the underlying instrument it certifies to are inconsistent on the face of the package as filed. The defendant’s Answer affirmatively raised this exact defect at § 3.n.(1) of Judicial Council Form UD-105.

UD-120, page 1. The plaintiff simultaneously certified, on a single page, “Landlord does NOT have a pending application” and “Before filing the complaint, landlord completed an application for rental assistance.” The CA COVID-19 Rent Relief Portal screenshots embedded in the same document at pages 4 and 6 identify Plaintiff’s Case ID 1261739, submitted November 2, 2021, with property address listed as 20012 Sand Dune Lane, Huntington Beach — the landlord’s personal residence, not the rental property. The tenant’s separate application, Case ID 1677985, embedded in ROA #15 at page 9, lists the correct property address at 19235 Brynn Court and reflects “Application in Documentation Review” status as of the date of the UD filing.

The UD-100 Complaint, the UD-101 Mandatory Cover Sheet, and the UD-120 Verification by Landlord Regarding Rental Assistance were each verified under penalty of perjury not by Phat L.K. Tran personally, but by Anna Tran Ly in stated capacity as “AGENT of PLAINTIFF.”

Both envelopes carry the same DocuSign certificate tail (167EA51F466), confirming a single human signer. The verification language is the standard form: “I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.” Verification by an agent operating on information and belief, rather than by the plaintiff personally, is permitted under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 446(a) where the party is not within the county or is unable to make the verification. The factual predicate authorizing § 446(a) verification by an agent rather than by the plaintiff personally is not stated on the face of either verification.

Court trial was set for February 16, 2022 at 8:30 AM in Department C61 (ROA #28). The trial minutes were finalized that morning (ROA #32). A Stipulation for Entry of Judgment was filed the same day (ROA #34), executed by Commissioner Kohler. Application for Writ of Possession followed on the same docket date (ROA #38). The pro se defendant appeared without counsel; plaintiff appeared through counsel of record.

Writ of Possession issued February 24, 2022 (ROA #39). Sheriff Don Barnes received the writ February 28, 2022. Notice to Vacate was posted on the premises March 11, 2022, and a copy mailed to the defendant the same date. The five-day notice window under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1174.3 ran from March 11 through March 16, 2022.

The writ was returned UNSATISFIED on March 22, 2022 (ROA #41), with accrued sheriff’s costs of $125.00. The return — executed by Sheriff’s Authorized Agent Annemarie #11331 on Friday, March 18, 2022 — bears the explicit notations: “Cancelled — By Plaintiff” and “Remarks: Eviction cancelled.” The plaintiff cancelled the eviction before sheriff execution. The defendant vacated voluntarily during the five-day notice window. The successor tenancy at the same property commenced May 1, 2022 — forty-seven days after the writ-unsatisfied return.

Across this matter, Anna Tran Ly executed four separate DocuSign envelopes in capacities ranging from service agent to plaintiff’s verifying agent.

All four envelopes share the same DocuSign certificate tail (167EA51F466), confirming a single signer. The platform of preparation across all four is Lone Wolf Transactions / zipForm Edition. The business-name identification appearing on the November 2, 2021 Notice footer is “Sun Realty and Management, 1532 Orchard Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92660” — a fictitious business name whose Orange County DBA registration expired February 24, 2015, six years before its display on the 2021 court filing.

The same individual, same broker license, same eFile platform, and same expired fictitious-business identifier reappear in connection with the successor 2024 tenancy at the same 19235 Brynn Court address. The 2024 executed lease bears DocuSign Envelope 46CC8725-F703-EF11-96F5-6045BDD68161. The consolidated Anna Ly DocuSign audit-trail target set across the 2021 prior-tenant matter and the 2024 successor-tenancy matter is five envelopes. Each envelope’s audit trail — IP origin, timestamps, browser fingerprint, viewer/signer sequence — is preserved by Lone Wolf Transactions and is reachable by judicial or agency subpoena.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(g) requires the landlord to deliver to the former tenant, within 21 calendar days of vacate, an itemized written statement disposing of the security deposit, identifying each deduction with the legal basis on which it is taken. Section 1950.5(b) limits permissible deductions to (i) unpaid rent, (ii) cleaning to the condition received, (iii) repair of damage beyond ordinary wear and tear, and (iv) where the rental agreement so provides, restoration or replacement of furnishings. Attorney fees are not within the § 1950.5(b) categories.

The Move-Out Disposition Statement for the 2022 vacate is not present in the OCSC court file and would not be expected to appear there — § 1950.5(g) is a private accounting between landlord and former tenant, not a court filing absent a separate civil action. The Complaint at item 19(d) affirmatively requested “reasonable attorney fees” under a lease-based attorney-fees clause (UD-100 item 15). The February 16, 2022 stipulation produced a possession judgment without a money judgment for fees. The remaining vehicle by which attorney fees could be collected from the prior tenant is a deduction taken on the § 1950.5(g) accounting.

For the successor 2024 tenancy at the same property, the Move-Out Clearance Report (DocuSign Envelope F5D247C2, Anna Ly signer) carries a filled-in line item designated as attorney fees in the amount of $2,005.00. The successor tenant of record characterizes that deduction as falling outside the § 1950.5(b) permitted categories.

All seven primary instruments are available through the Orange County Superior Court Civil Web Shopping portal under case number 30-2021-01237695.

Allegation framing absolute. No finding has been made. The documents speak; this page directs the reader to them. Internal contradictions and documentary irregularities identified above are visible on the face of the filed instruments as a matter of public record. Their adjudication, if any, is reserved to the courts and to the regulatory bodies catalogued under Section 07 · Agency Proceedings.