Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices (Corporate Entity)

Franchise Corporate Structure — Evidence Suppression — Mail Fraud Chain-of-Custody — Supervisory Failure — Vicarious Liability for Agent Misconduct — Enterprise Link.

I. Summary of Corporate Role

Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices ("BHHS") is the corporate umbrella under which agents Hanson Le and Anna Ly operated. The Huntington Beach branch served as the physical interception point for certified mail containing rent payments — including the USPS-delivered payment that was signed for by “H.” and later concealed.

BHHS was formally notified of fraud, forged documents, and evidence concealment through certified letters, UPS overnight delivery, and direct emails. Despite this, BHHS failed to investigate, preserve evidence, or respond appropriately. This corporate inaction contributed to the continuation of the fraudulent eviction and enabled financial damage to the elderly tenant.

II. Organizational Context

Entity: Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties
Location in Case: Huntington Beach office
Function: Broker-of-record for receiving rent payments
Operational Role: Provided address used to send certified payments
Supervisory Link: Responsible for oversight of all licensed agents
Corporate Staff Involved: - Huntington Beach Manager - State-level administration - Legal Department (contacted by tenant) - Corporate representatives including David Beard

III. Timeline of Corporate Involvement

2022–2023: Lease opened and renewed through BHHS channels.
May 2024: Certified check addressed to BHHS delivered; signed by “H.”; evidence later concealed.
June 2024: Tenant informs BHHS of fraud, payment disappearance, and potential forged documents.
July 2024: BHHS receives detailed fraud packet via UPS and email; no investigation begins.
2024–2025: Tenant repeatedly notifies BHHS legal department; BHHS instructs tenant to “stop contacting.”
2025: BHHS fails to return requested documents to HBPD Lt. Randall.

IV. Evidence Relevant to Corporate Liability

The following evidence establishes BHHS’s supervisory failure and involvement in chain-of-custody violation:

USPS Proof: Certified payment signed for at BHHS front desk.
Corporate Notice Letters: Multiple certified and UPS overnight packages sent to BHHS.
Email Logs: Tenant emailed BHHS legal department regarding evidence theft and forged lease.
Silence: BHHS produced no responses acknowledging fraud or initiating preservation of records.
Agent Oversight Failure: Both Ly and Le directly engaged in misconduct under BHHS brand.
Corporate Staff Statement: “We are not responsible for our franchisees” — demonstrates knowledge of misconduct but refusal to investigate.

This evidentiary trail shows corporate-level neglect and tacit allowance of criminal misconduct.

V. Statutory Exposure (Corporate)

A. California Civil & Regulatory

Civ. Code § 1942.5: Retaliatory eviction exposure through agents.
H&S §§ 17920.3 / 17920.10: Habitability representations in listing.
B&P § 10177: Broker liability for agent misconduct.
B&P § 17200: Corporate unfair business practices.

B. California Penal Code (Vicarious / Aiding)

PC § 182 — Conspiracy: Ignoring known fraud and enabling continuation.
PC § 135 — Evidence Suppression: Failure to preserve or return certified evidence.
PC § 518 — Extortion (Indirect): Benefit derived from false arrears scheme.
PC § 532 — False Pretenses: Misrepresenting rent obligations through agent chain.

C. Federal Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 1341 — Mail Fraud: Corporate location used as intercept point.
18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud: Digital communications used to suppress truth.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 — RICO: Multiple agents acting under a shared corporate brand.

VI. Corporate Misconduct Pattern

Failure to investigate certified evidence of fraud.
Failure to supervise agents engaged in criminal conduct.
Returning no documents when demanded by HBPD.
Ignoring tenant’s legally protected notices.
Corporate-level letters dismissing tenant’s warnings.
Suppression of information at the franchise and state office level.

VII. Enterprise Connections

To Hanson Le: Payment interception relied on BHHS office address and corporate systems.
To Anna Ly: Lease alterations originated under BHHS brand identity.
To Phat Tran: BHHS served as the official conduit for his rental transactions.
To Silverstein: Corporate documents were part of litigation narrative.
To Rosiak: Failure to return corporate documents impeded defense.

VIII. Notes for Investigators

Subpoena BHHS Huntington Beach office logs for May 28–30, 2024.
Subpoena corporate legal department for copies of tenant letters.
Subpoena agent licensing files (Ly & Le) through California DRE.
Confirm who signed for certified mail (“H.”) and under what authority.
Review internal BHHS policies for evidence-handling and agent supervision.
Corporate silence despite formal notice strongly supports enterprise allegation.