1. Executive Summary
This exhibit establishes that on May 4, 2024,
40 days before the eviction was initiated,
the tenant issued a detailed, good-faith written notice to
Dr. Phat Ky Tran and
Hanson Le (BHHS / Ethos Properties) documenting:
- habitability defects (mold, broken dishwasher),
- a rent increase imposed without the legally required 60-day notice,
- a concrete warning that a month’s rent had not been credited,
- misuse of a “lease extension” to disguise a new, unlawful contract,
- a reasonable, written proposal to resolve the issue cooperatively.
2. Evidentiary Screenshot
Exhibit: May 4, 2024 Email — Timestamp 11:46 AM, Yahoo/Sent
3. Legal Impact — Statutory Violations Triggered by This Notice
A. Retaliatory Eviction (Cal. Civ. Code §1942.5)
Tenant asserted rights on May 4. Retaliation occurred within **40 days**, well inside California's **180-day presumption**.
Tenant asserted rights on May 4. Retaliation occurred within **40 days**, well inside California's **180-day presumption**.
B. Illegal Rent Increase — Failure to Provide 60-Day Notice (AB 1482)
The tenant explicitly notified Tran/Le that the increase was invalid. Proceeding anyway converts the conduct into knowing violation.
The tenant explicitly notified Tran/Le that the increase was invalid. Proceeding anyway converts the conduct into knowing violation.
C. Habitability Violations (Cal. Civ. Code §1941.1 & §1942.4)
Email documents mold + broken dishwasher uncorrected for months. Under §1942.4, accepting rent while conditions persist is unlawful.
Email documents mold + broken dishwasher uncorrected for months. Under §1942.4, accepting rent while conditions persist is unlawful.
D. Payment Concealment / Bank Instrument Misuse
Email states: “a month's rent has not been credited.”
This predates the July check dispute and matches the concealed instrument timeline.
Email states: “a month's rent has not been credited.”
This predates the July check dispute and matches the concealed instrument timeline.
E. Fraudulent Lease Substitution
Tenant identifies that the “extension” was a new lease without proper notice. This supports: – fraud in inducement, – fraud in execution, – B&P §17200 unfair business practices.
Tenant identifies that the “extension” was a new lease without proper notice. This supports: – fraud in inducement, – fraud in execution, – B&P §17200 unfair business practices.
F. Breach of Duty by Real Estate Licensee
Hanson Le’s failure to respond after receipt of this notice constitutes a violation under the California Business & Professions Code §10176/10177.
Hanson Le’s failure to respond after receipt of this notice constitutes a violation under the California Business & Professions Code §10176/10177.
4. Narrative Reconstruction — Why This Email Destroys Their Case
The landlord and agent cannot legally assert that the tenant:
- failed to communicate,
- failed to pay rent,
- accepted the new lease,
- or caused the dispute.
This email shows the opposite: the tenant was proactive, reasonable, and acting in good faith.
The eviction was filed only after the tenant raised:
- mold,
- dishwasher failure,
- payment credit failure,
- illegal rent increase,
- fraudulent contract manipulation.
This is the textbook statutory profile of a **retaliatory eviction** and a **fraud cover-up sequence**.
5. Remedy & Enforcement Pathways
The legal remedies triggered by this single document include:
- Automatic retaliation presumption — tenant prevails as a matter of law.
- Treble damages under §1942.5(c).
- Civil penalties under AB1482.
- Restitution of all overcharges caused by the falsified lease.
- Criminal exposure for:
- document concealment,
- fraudulent financial representations,
- use of a falsified lease in court,
- mail/wire misuse linked to payment return fraud.
The May 4 email is therefore a **keystone exhibit** that shows: warning → retaliation → eviction. This is the causal chain the District Attorney requires.