Cure Tender

Dishwasher failure reported to owner

Plaintiffs notified the owner that the dishwasher had failed. The dishwasher was the same appliance that had been found inoperable at move-in in May 2022 and had been the subject of an earlier email exchange in May 2022 referencing a burnt electrical outlet under the sink shared by the dishwasher.

Source. Tenant communication record; corroborated by 2022 email re: burnt outlet under sink.

Broker and technician unable to repair

Hanson Le, listing agent and incoming property manager, attended the property with a handyman/technician. Text exchange the same afternoon (5:25 PM) confirms attendance:

Hello Mike, There is some delay due to additional works handyman need to fix, We will come between 6–6:30pm. Is it ok? Thanks Mike! — Hanson Le to Michael Gasio, text message, April 18, 2024 5:25 PM

The dishwasher was not repaired during this visit.

Source. Text message April 18, 2024 5:25 PM (in-conversation timestamp).

Broker promises new dishwasher in writing

On the same day the new lease was executed, Hanson Le sent a text containing the following commitment:

Thank you for being being so thoughtful & cooperative!
I will do my best to help you to have nice peaceful house to live & enjoy.

I will get the owner approval to have a new dishwasher installed for you & your family usage. — Hanson Le to Michael Gasio, text message, April 26, 2024 (in-conversation timestamp)

This commitment was made in broker capacity, on the same day the broker also asked the tenant to redirect rent payments to the broker's personal Wells Fargo account — the second of two such written solicitations within a 24-hour window (see Section 05 Stages 7.6 and 9).

Source. Text message April 26, 2024.

Owner's response: towel bars

In a telephone conversation following the April 26 written promise, Hanson Le informed the plaintiff that the owner had not approved a new dishwasher and had instead offered to install towel bars in the property.

Plaintiff thereafter wrote directly to the owner, characterizing the binary plainly: either the owner had refused the new dishwasher (in which case the broker's prior written promise had been overridden), or the broker was misrepresenting the owner's position. The owner did not respond in writing denying the broker's representation. Under California Evidence Code § 1221 (adoptive admission), a party's silence in the face of a statement that, if untrue, the party would naturally deny may be received in evidence as an admission.

In a subsequent text exchange between plaintiff and Hanson Le during this same period, the broker stated:

I have to get the owner approval first for big expenses, find right product, and place order — Hanson Le to Michael Gasio, text message, on or about late April / early May 2024

— consistent with the broker's position that the owner had withheld approval for the dishwasher replacement.

Source. Text messages between plaintiff, broker, and owner; telephone conversation; tenant communication record. Cal. Evid. Code § 1221 (adoptive admission).

Plaintiff writes owner regarding unresolved condition

Plaintiff wrote the owner inquiring on the dishwasher repair status and addressing the need for active property management following Hanson Le's reduced involvement.

Source. Tenant communication record.

Broker withdrew from management role and license affiliation detached

Hanson Le sent text from the “Property Manager” line at 3:50 PM:

Michael:
I am no longer handling or managing this property from today 5/13/24024.
Please remove my phone and email from all of your communications.
For all matters related to this house, please contact the owner directly.

Thanks,
Hanson — Hanson Le to Michael Gasio, text message, May 13, 2024 3:50 PM

This withdrawal occurred 12 days after the new lease commenced on May 1, 2024. The broker withdrew without resolving the dishwasher condition that he had committed to address in writing on April 26.

DRE consumer-license records (verified April 28, 2026) disclose that Hanson Le's salesperson/broker affiliation with Springdale Marina Inc — the corporate licensee operating Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties at the Huntington Beach branch — also detached on May 13, 2024, the same calendar date as the property-management withdrawal text. By the time the cashier's check arrived at the BHHS office on May 30, 2024, Mr. Le held no corporate brokerage authority through that licensee. Cross-reference: Brokerage Organizational Structure Section II.

Source. Text message May 13, 2024 3:50 PM; DRE consumer-license lookup verified April 28, 2026.

Plaintiffs purchased replacement dishwasher

Plaintiffs purchased a replacement dishwasher from The Home Depot for delivery to 19235 Brynn Court. Order details:

Order confirmation was emailed to gasio77@yahoo.com. Delivery address: Michael Gasio, 19235 Brynn Ct, Huntington Beach, CA 92648.

This purchase was an exercise of the tenant repair-and-deduct remedy under California Civil Code § 1942, which permits a tenant to make necessary repairs after the landlord fails to do so within a reasonable time after notice and to deduct the cost from rent (up to one month's rent). The dishwasher had been reported broken on March 5, 2024 — over ten weeks earlier.

Source. Home Depot order confirmation. Governing provision: Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.

Cashier's check obtained for the lawful net rent

Plaintiffs obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $4,338.48, dated May 28, 2024, payable to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices. The amount represents the contractual rent of $5,350 for May 2024 less the documented dishwasher repair under Civil Code § 1942:

The cashier's check was made payable to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices — the broker named on the executed lease as receiving rent on behalf of the owner. The check was sent in four 1-pound packages via USPS Certified Mail. Each package included documentation of the dishwasher repair, including the Home Depot invoice.

Source. Cashier's check copy; USPS receipt 05/28/2024 03:41 PM, Huntington Beach 6771 Warner Ave.

USPS Certified Mail delivered and signed for at BHHS

USPS Tracking #9534914882764149935944 confirmed delivery at 3:43 PM in Huntington Beach 92649 (the ZIP code of the Berkshire Hathaway California Properties office at 5848 Edinger Ave, Huntington Beach — mailing and main office of Springdale Marina Inc, DRE Corp #01208606). Status: “Delivered, Left with Individual.” Signed for by “H H.”

The cashier's check and accompanying documentation were therefore in the possession of an individual at Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices on May 30, 2024 — twenty-two days before the Three-Day Notice was served on June 21, 2024.

The check was payable to “Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices” as a corporate payee. An individual signing for delivery on behalf of the firm could not personally cash the instrument; the check could only be applied through the corporate brokerage's accounting. The instrument was nonetheless not deposited, not credited to the rent account, and not returned with explanation.

Source. USPS Tracking #9534914882764149935944, delivery confirmation May 30, 2024 3:43 PM.

Documentation in possession of the owner

Independently of the certified mailing to the broker, plaintiffs provided the owner directly with images of the cashier's check and the Home Depot receipts. The owner accepted these documents and used them in connection with his own tax records.

As of the date the Three-Day Notice was prepared and served (June 21, 2024), the owner therefore had in his own possession the documentation establishing both (i) the tendered cashier's check and (ii) the dishwasher purchase that anchored the deduction. The notice nonetheless demanded the gross $5,350 as if neither document existed.

Source. Plaintiff record; documents transmitted to owner for his tax records.

“Hanson has check” — Owner confirms broker holds the tendered instrument

During the statutory cure window following service of the Three-Day Notice, Phat Tran sent Michael Gasio a text message stating that “Hanson has the check.” The text places the Owner himself, in writing, on the documentary record as confirming during the cure window that the broker held the tendered cashier's check. Documentary preservation: text-conversation in-conversation timestamp.

The Owner's own confirmation that the broker held the tendered instrument during the cure window contradicts the contemporaneous Three-Day Notice's allegation that no payment had been made.

Source. Phat Tran SMS to Michael Gasio, on or about June 22–24, 2024 (in-conversation timestamp).

Owner same-day-after admission

On June 22, 2024 — the day after the Three-Day Notice was served — Phat Tran sent Michael Gasio a text exchange in which the Owner admitted in writing the following:

• he did not know the rent had been paid to the broker's personal account;
• he was confused by the contract terms;
• the broker had falsely represented to the Owner that the tenants did not wish to sign the new lease.

The Owner's June 22 admission, made within the statutory cure window, places on the documentary record:

• That the rent-routing structure on the executed lease was not transparent to the Owner himself — bearing on broker fiduciary duty under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10145 (broker trust-fund handling) and the related-account framing on Section 05;
• That representations to the tenant about owner-side intent had been substantively contradicted by what the Owner himself was telling the tenant when contacted directly;
• That the broker's withdrawal communications and account routing had been carried forward into the eviction filing without the Owner's actual contemporaneous knowledge of the rent-receipt status.

Source. Phat Tran SMS to Michael Gasio, June 22, 2024 (in-conversation timestamp); preserved in document set; cross-reference Section 05 Section VII.