This website provides a documented account of the procedural history of Hoang Van Vu v. Murtaza Iqbal Dar, L A Superior Court
This website provides a documented account of the procedural history of Hoang Van Vu v. Murtaza Iqbal Dar, L A Superior Court
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.
THE CASE 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 explain the procedural history that led to it and to make relevant public court records available for independent review.
I appeared in the action as a self-represented defendant and filed an Answer on November 14, 2023. During the earlier stages of the litigation, I did not meaningfully participate in the court process and instead attempted to address the dispute informally. As a self-represented litigant, I did not properly follow the procedural and discovery requirements of the case.
Those failures had significant consequences. Court orders and discovery sanctions followed, including requests for admission being deemed admitted. My Answer was ultimately struck through terminating sanctions, and the case proceeded against me by default.
Accordingly, the judgment was not entered following a contested trial at which I presented a defense and both parties presented competing evidence concerning the underlying fraud allegations.
I dispute the underlying fraud allegations and believe the factual narrative asserted against me is incorrect.
That is my position. It is not a representation that the Superior Court found the allegations false. This website does not claim that I prevailed, that the judgment does not exist, or that it has been reversed or eliminated.
The distinction is important: the judgment followed procedural and discovery sanctions, the striking of my Answer, and default. It did not follow a contested trial at which I presented my evidence and defense against the underlying allegations.
Postjudgment Participation
In 2026, I sought relief from the judgment in the Superior Court. At that stage, I began participating more directly in the court process and following the procedural requirements associated with my request for relief.
My postjudgment filings did not attempt to conceal the earlier procedural history. I acknowledged my failures as a self-represented litigant and submitted declarations, supporting documents, a proposed Answer, and other materials asking the court to permit the case to be defended rather than remain determined by default.
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 seeking appellate review of that postjudgment order. The status of any appellate proceeding will be reported on this website according to the official record. No appellate result will be represented unless and until one occurs.
Read the Record Yourself
This website is intended to function as an organized public case record—not as a personal attack on the plaintiff, attorneys, judges.
Relevant publicly available records will be organized and displayed here, including pleadings, court orders, docket information, discovery-related orders, the judgment, postjudgment motions, declarations, exhibits, rulings, and, when applicable, appellate filings and orders.
The website will distinguish among allegations made by a party, statements contained in filings, findings and orders actually made by the court, objective procedural events reflected in the record, and my own position concerning the dispute.
Where practicable, the underlying documents will be provided directly so readers do not have to rely solely on my description of what occurred.
The purpose is straightforward: anyone searching for Taz Dar, Murtaza Iqbal Dar, Murtaza Dar, Hoang Van Vu v. Murtaza Iqbal Dar, or Case No. 23SMCV04492 should have access not merely to the existence of a judgment or an allegation appearing in litigation, but to the procedural history and primary documents necessary to understand the context in which that judgment was entered.
Does a judgment exist? Yes.
Was the judgment entered following a contested merits trial? No.
Does this website claim the Superior Court found the underlying fraud allegations false? No.
Does Murtaza Iqbal Dar dispute the underlying fraud allegations? Yes.
The documents are available. The procedural history is documented. Readers can examine the record and reach their own conclusions.
I firmly dispute the fraud allegations asserted against me. I did not present my defense at a contested trial before judgment was entered by default. I am placing the procedural history, court filings, and supporting records openly so the complete record can be examined—not merely a judgment viewed without its context.
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.