This website provides a documented account of the procedural history of Hoang Van Vu v. Murtaza Iqbal Dar, Los Angeles Superi
This website provides a documented account of the procedural history of Hoang Van Vu v. Murtaza Iqbal Dar, Los Angeles Superi
This section offers a comprehensive overview of the legal case Hoang Van Vu v. Murtaza Iqbal Dar, including detailed procedural history and public records. It aims to provide transparency and accessible legal information for interested parties and the record.
Murtaza Iqbal Dar
Public Case Record & Procedural History
Hoang Van Vu v. Murtaza Iqbal Dar
Los Angeles Superior Court · Santa Monica Courthouse · Case No. 23SMCV04492
This website provides a documented, public-record account of the procedural history of Hoang Van Vu v. Murtaza Iqbal Dar, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23SMCV04492.
A default judgment was entered against me on December 4, 2025. I do not deny or minimize the existence of that judgment. This website exists to provide the procedural context necessary to understand how that judgment was reached and to make the relevant public court record accessible for independent review.
I appeared in the action as a self-represented defendant and filed an Answer on November 14, 2023. During the litigation, discovery and procedural failures occurred while I was representing myself. Those failures resulted in court orders and sanctions, including requests for admission being deemed admitted. My Answer was ultimately struck through terminating sanctions, and the action proceeded against me by default.
Accordingly, the judgment was not entered following a contested trial in which I presented my defense and the parties’ competing evidence concerning the underlying fraud allegations was adjudicated after a merits trial.
I dispute the underlying fraud allegations.
That is my position. It is not a representation that the Superior Court found the allegations false. The court did not make such a determination following a contested trial. This website likewise does not claim that I prevailed in the action, that the judgment does not exist, or that the judgment has been reversed or otherwise eliminated.
In 2026, I sought postjudgment relief from the Superior Court. My filings acknowledged earlier procedural mistakes rather than denying that they occurred. I submitted declarations, a proposed Answer, supporting documents, and other materials in an effort to demonstrate that my conduct reflected defective attempts to participate in the litigation rather than an intentional abandonment of it.
On August 6, 2026, the Honorable Bradley S. Phillips denied my request to set aside or vacate the judgment and adopted the court’s tentative ruling as its final ruling. I am pursuing appellate review of that postjudgment order. Any appellate proceeding and its outcome will be reported here according to the official record and its actual procedural status.
Read the Record Yourself
This website is intended to function as a documented public case record—not as a personal attack on the plaintiff, attorneys, judges, witnesses, or other participants.
Relevant publicly available court records will be organized and displayed here, including pleadings, court orders, docket information, the judgment, postjudgment motions, declarations, exhibits, rulings, and, when applicable, appellate filings and orders.
Where a statement on this website concerns an allegation made by a party, it will be identified as an allegation. Where it reflects my position, it will be identified as my position. Where the court actually made a finding or issued an order, the underlying court record will be identified and, where practicable, provided for direct review.
The purpose is straightforward: anyone searching for information concerning Murtaza Iqbal Dar, Murtaza Dar, or Case No. 23SMCV04492 should have access not merely to a label or isolated judgment, but to the procedural history and primary documents necessary to examine the record for themselves.
The documents are available. The procedural history is documented. Readers can review the record and reach their own conclusions.
Does a judgment exist? Yes. Was there a contested trial at which both sides presented their evidence on the fraud allegations? No. Does this website claim the Superior Court determined the allegations were false? No. Does Murtaza Iqbal Dar dispute those allegations? Yes.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.