Overview

Plaintiff Kevin Moda asserts seven causes of action arising from the alleged coordinated scheme to remove him from Unit 801 at 889 Francisco Street, including an unlawful physical lockout, a fabricated disciplinary process, computer surveillance, and misuse of HOA authority. The complaint was filed July 8, 2025.

Count I — Constructive Eviction

Against: All Defendants

Plaintiff alleges that the deactivation of all building access on July 2, 2025 and the physical lockout of Unit 801 on July 17–18, 2025 constituted a constructive eviction in violation of California Civil Code § 1927 (implied covenant of quiet enjoyment) and the CC&Rs' access protections.

California courts have held that a landlord's interference with a tenant's right of ingress and egress may constitute a constructive eviction. In a 38-story high-rise where the elevators are the sole practical means of vertical transit, revoking common-area access — including elevator access — for an 8th-floor resident is, in Plaintiff's words, "the functional equivalent of changing the locks." (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 292 [cited in Plaintiff's anti-SLAPP opposition].)

The court entered a Temporary Restraining Order on July 24, 2025 and a Preliminary Injunction on September 4, 2025 (both by Hon. James C. Chalfant), finding "limited probability of success" on this claim and ordering Plaintiff's access to be restored and maintained.

Count II — Tenant Harassment

Against: Cieszynski, Metro Property Management, LLC, and the Metropolis I Owners' Association

Plaintiff alleges a pattern of 220+ days of harassment from June 6, 2025 through January 12, 2026, including fabricated accusations, a sham disciplinary hearing held without Plaintiff's knowledge, total access revocation, package withholding, visitor restrictions, food-delivery blocking, and a physical lockout.

Civil Code § 1940.2 makes it unlawful to use "conduct that interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment" for the purpose of inducing a tenant to vacate. Plaintiff calculates $2,000 per week of violations, yielding $62,000 per defendant over 31 weeks of the alleged harassment period.

Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (LAMC § 45.30 et seq.) provides additional municipal remedies including attorney's fees and treble damages. Plaintiff alleges that the same course of conduct violates the City's ordinance.

Plaintiff additionally argues that each week of harassment, when trebled under Penal Code § 496c, yields $252,000 per defendant — $504,000 against both Cieszynski and the HOA entity jointly.

Count III — Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Constructive Fraud

Against: Oleg Pariser

Plaintiff alleges that HOA Board President Oleg Pariser breached his fiduciary duties to Metropolis I residents, including Plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the governing documents, by executing the Metro Property Management contract without the board vote, competitive bidding, or legal review required by the CC&Rs and California Corporations Code § 7210.

Key allegations in this count include:

The Unilateral Execution: Pariser's own declaration states he "personally executed" the management agreement. Under California Corporations Code § 7210, an HOA is governed by its Board as a body; individual officers have no unilateral authority to execute major service contracts. Plaintiff alleges Pariser's claimed authority ("In this role, I am authorized to sign Association's contracts") is a misrepresentation of California law and the CC&Rs.

The Plagiarized Contract: Forensic review of the management agreement (Exhibit 1 to the Pariser Declaration) found that Page 17 of the contract still bore the name "Action Property Management, Inc." — the company Cieszynski was fired from — in a pricing clause. Plaintiff alleges this proves Cieszynski plagiarized the contract template and that Pariser signed without reading the document, breaching his duty of care.

The "Unrelated" Termination Claim: Pariser's declaration states that MPM's termination on August 31, 2025 was "unrelated" to Plaintiff's lawsuit. Plaintiff contends this is demonstrably false: the Board fired Cieszynski six weeks after a TRO, thirty days after a physical lockout, and in the face of statutory damages for employing an unlicensed contractor. Plaintiff characterizes this statement as perjury.

Civil Code § 1573 (constructive fraud) applies where a fiduciary duty is violated without honest purpose — including the situation where an HOA officer executes a void contract without proper diligence.

Count IV — Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Into Private Affairs)

Against: Cieszynski, Metro Property Management, LLC, and the Metropolis I Owners' Association

Plaintiff alleges that over 14 distinct sessions in the building's Business Center between 2024 and June 2025, Cieszynski and Metro Property Management staff manually manipulated security cameras to zoom and focus directly on Plaintiff's laptop screen and keyboard — monitoring the content of his private communications, financial data, legal correspondence, and web activity.

This claim is grounded in California's constitutional right to privacy (Art. I, § 1) and the common-law tort of intrusion into private affairs (CACI 1800). California courts have recognized that a posted notice of physical security cameras in an area does not authorize monitoring of the content a user creates, views, types, or transmits on a personal device. (Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 272; Shulman v. Group W Productions (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200.)

Plaintiff further alleges that the Metropolis I Video and Surveillance Policy — which Pariser voted to adopt — expressly restricts security cameras to general area security and prohibits targeted monitoring of residents' private screen interactions, making the alleged conduct an ultra vires violation of the HOA's own policy.

Count V — Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520)

Against: Cieszynski, Metro Property Management, LLC, and the Metropolis I Owners' Association

Plaintiff alleges the same 14 Business Center surveillance sessions constitute violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520, on the theory that the camera monitoring captured electronic communications — screen pixels, keystrokes, and active data transmissions — without a warrant or consent.

Section 2520 provides for mandatory statutory damages of $10,000 per violation (or actual damages, whichever is greater). Plaintiff calculates: 14 violations × $10,000 = $140,000 in federal statutory damages.

California Penal Code §§ 631 and 632 provide parallel state-law remedies of $5,000 per violation (§ 637.2), yielding an additional $70,000 in state statutory damages under Plaintiff's theory.

See the Surveillance & Privacy page for a full account of the alleged monitoring conduct and supporting evidence.

Count VI — Defamation Per Se

Against: Cieszynski, Aghazarian, and the Metropolis I Owners' Association

Plaintiff alleges that the accusations presented at the June 30, 2025 board hearing — including allegations of "computer hacking," voyeurism, and public urination — were fabricated, known to be false, and communicated without Plaintiff's knowledge or opportunity to respond. Because these accusations impute the commission of crimes (criminal offenses under Penal Code §§ 647, 647(j), and federal computer fraud statutes), they constitute defamation per se under California law, which presumes damages without proof of special harm.

The "fabrication timeline" Plaintiff identifies: Frank Marenco on June 2, 2025 wrote only that he "smelled" an odor in the sauna — no eyewitness claim, no description of a person. Twenty-eight days later, a Three-Day Notice to Quit drafted by Aghazarian's counsel transformed this into a statement that Plaintiff was "witnessed by two people urinating in public" and added a voyeurism accusation. Plaintiff alleges the computer-hacking accusation arose directly from Cieszynski's unauthorized review of surveillance footage initiated by a pretextual request from Aghazarian's own counsel.

Count VII — Conversion

Against: Cieszynski and Metro Property Management, LLC

Plaintiff alleges that Cieszynski and Metro Property Management wrongfully took possession of personal property belonging to Plaintiff — specifically, a Thunderbolt cable and a flash drive — from the Business Center during or around the surveillance episode, without Plaintiff's consent and without returning the items.

California's conversion claim requires proof of ownership, intentional act of dominion over the property, and resulting damage. (CACI 2100.) Plaintiff alleges Cieszynski's own declaration, filed in connection with the preliminary injunction opposition, contains admissions about his interaction with Plaintiff's property in the Business Center that establish this claim.

Damages Summary

Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication filings calculate damages as follows. These are Plaintiff's claimed amounts, not court awards.