1046 – Retaliation Motive for Eviction – Legal Summary

Email warning to Hanson Le regarding enforcement and investigation, June 25 2024

1. Trigger Event

By June 25, 2024, both the Huntington Beach Police Department and State Real Estate Investigator Tom Nguyen were informed of suspected forgery, misrepresentation, and contract fraud involving Anna Ly (the owner’s daughter) and Hanson Le (the owner’s associate).

2. Immediate Threat to Owner

The allegations placed Phat Tran’s daughter and her associate under possible regulatory and criminal review. Confirmed exposure included:

California Business & Professions Code §§10176, 10177 – Misrepresentation and License Revocation
California Penal Code §§470, 484, 532 – Forgery, Theft, and Fraud

3. Retaliation Mechanism

Within weeks of the enforcement contact, Phat Tran initiated eviction proceedings against the reporting tenant. The act falls under California Civil Code §1942.5(a), which prohibits eviction in retaliation for a tenant’s good-faith report to law enforcement or a regulatory agency.

4. Evidentiary Indicators

Eviction notice followed immediately after complaints were filed with police and DRE.
Owner acknowledged awareness of active enforcement inquiries.
The contract under dispute was the same document under fraud review.
No unpaid rent or legitimate lease violation preceded the eviction.

5. Inference

The eviction was executed to silence and remove a reporting tenant while shielding Anna Ly and Hanson Le from further police and DRE investigation. This establishes direct retaliatory intent.

6. Legal Framing

Conduct meets the criteria for retaliatory eviction under California Civil Code §1942.5(a) and may constitute obstruction of justice under California Penal Code §136.1, as it interfered with a witness’s cooperation during an active investigation.

Timeline of Retaliation
Date	Event	Legal Relevance
June 25 2024	Police and State DRE notified of forged lease and misrepresentation.	Triggers potential enforcement actions.
Following Weeks	Owner initiates eviction against reporting tenant.	Temporal proximity suggests retaliation.
Investigation Period	Owner’s daughter and friend identified as key subjects under review.	Provides clear motive to suppress inquiry.

Conclusion: The eviction was not based on performance or payment issues but designed to obstruct official inquiries, protect implicated parties, and eliminate a cooperating witness. The timing, communication trail, and statutory framework together demonstrate clear retaliation and intent to conceal fraud.