Superior Court of California  ·  County of Los Angeles  ·  Case No. 25STCV19732

Court Orders & Judicial Rulings

Every signed court order and judicial ruling in the main civil action, from the initial Temporary Restraining Order through the Anti-SLAPP decisions.

Court orders quoted below are public records from LASC Case No. 25STCV19732. They are reproduced here for informational purposes as public filings. Factual findings in preliminary injunction proceedings are not final adjudications of the merits.

Orders at a Glance

TRO
Granted July 24, 2025 — Judge Chalfant
PI
Granted Sept. 4, 2025 (vs. Cieszynski & Marenco)
Anti-SLAPP Motions Denied (Jan. 12 & June 15, 2026)
Date Order / Ruling Judge Dept. Result
July 24, 2025 Temporary Restraining Order Hon. James C. Chalfant 85 Granted
September 4, 2025 Preliminary Injunction (vs. Cieszynski & Marenco) Hon. James C. Chalfant 85 Granted
September 4, 2025 Preliminary Injunction (vs. Aghazarian) Hon. James C. Chalfant 85 Denied
January 12, 2026 Cieszynski Motion for Leave to File Anti-SLAPP Hon. Richard L. Fruin 15 Denied
June 15, 2026 Cieszynski & Metro Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Hon. Cherol J. Nellon 300 Denied
August 12, 2026 Hearing — MSA / Pending Motions TBD TBD Upcoming

Temporary Restraining Order — July 24, 2025

Case: Moda v. Aghazarian, et al.  |  Judge: Hon. James C. Chalfant  |  Department: 85, Stanley Mosk Courthouse  |  Filed: July 25, 2025

On July 24, 2025, Judge Chalfant granted Plaintiff's ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order and issued an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction. The TRO was signed and filed July 25, 2025.

Parties Restrained

The TRO was directed to Defendants Argam Aghazarian, Joshua Cieszynski, Frank Marenco, and Action Property Management, Inc. (and all persons acting in concert with them).

TRO Prohibitions

Pending hearing on the Order to Show Cause, the defendants and their agents were restrained and enjoined from:

Item A

Unit Lockout

Locking Plaintiff out of Unit 801, 889 Francisco Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017.

Item B

Elevator & Parking

Denying Plaintiff access to the elevator and parking garage.

Item C

Mail & Packages

Interfering with Plaintiff's receipt of mail or packages.

Item D

Trash & Mail Collection

Preventing Plaintiff from taking out the trash or collecting mail.

Order to Show Cause Provisions

The OSC re Preliminary Injunction additionally called on defendants to show cause why they should not be enjoined from: denying or restricting Plaintiff's access to Unit 801; changing locks or disabling key fobs; refusing package delivery or mail services; denying maintenance requests or repairs; restricting access to common areas, amenities, or services; and engaging in any harassment, intimidation, or retaliation against Plaintiff.

Briefing Schedule

The court set opposition due August 7, 2025 and reply due August 11, 2025. The OSC hearing was initially set for August 14, 2025, but was continued to September 4, 2025 due to defective service issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED. — Hon. James C. Chalfant, July 25, 2025

Preliminary Injunction Decision — September 4, 2025

Caption: Kevin Moda v. Agram Aghazarian et al., 25STCV19732  |  Judge: Hon. James C. Chalfant  |  Filed: September 4, 2025

Judge Chalfant issued a written decision on September 4, 2025 on Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction. The decision is described as a "Tentative decision on application for preliminary injunction: granted in limited respect."

Procedural Context Noted by the Court

The court documented the following procedural history in its decision:

DateEvent
July 7, 2025Complaint filed — 11 causes of action
July 8, 2025Aghazarian, Cieszynski, and Marenco personally served; APM served by substituted service
July 24, 2025TRO granted and OSC issued
October 4, 2025Moda amended the Complaint to substitute Oleg Pariser for Doe 1
August 6, 2025Cieszynski and Marenco each filed Answers and Cross-Complaints against Aghazarian
August 11, 2025Aghazarian filed Answer and Cross-Complaint against Cieszynski and Marenco
August 14, 2025Hearing continued to September 4 due to defective service
August 14, 2025Moda served Pariser by substituted service and mail
August 18, 2025Clerk entered dismissal of all causes as to Action Property Management, Inc. per Moda's August 8 request

Court's Legal Standard

The court applied the two-factor standard for preliminary injunctions under CCP § 526(a): (1) the reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial, and (2) the balance of the "irreparable harm" the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied versus the harm defendants would suffer if it is granted.

Ruling as to Aghazarian — DENIED

Court's Finding

The court found that "Moda has not shown a probability of success against Defendant Aghazarian and the application is denied as to him."

The court found that Aghazarian's evidence showed he did not sublet the unit to Moda, did not intend to enter a landlord-tenant relationship with Moda, and had taken only legal steps to evict. The court noted Aghazarian was not present when Moda was locked out on July 17, 2025, and had affirmatively granted the Association permission to let Moda back in.

Aghazarian's Evidence

Aghazarian presented evidence that he leased Unit 801 to Illana Stuppel on February 28, 2025, with the lease prohibiting sublease. Stuppel initially introduced Moda as "her assistant." Aghazarian assumed Moda was Stuppel's associate until Stuppel's July 25, 2025 email declared the Agreement void.

Aghazarian argued he never intended to enter a landlord-tenant relationship with Moda and had been trying to evict him lawfully through the three-day notice process.

Ruling as to Cieszynski and Marenco — GRANTED

Court's Finding

"Moda has shown a limited probability of success against Defendants Cieszynski and Marenco."

The court found that while Cieszynski and Marenco fully explained many of the issues raised, "They fail to show, however, that Moda cannot succeed on any of his claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and unfair competition law."

The court further noted that defendants' argument of mootness (because Moda now had access via the TRO) "does not moot an issue that is capable of repetition when there is no injunctive restraint in place."

Balance of Hardships

The court found the balance of hardships favored Moda: "Without injunctive relief, Moda may lose access to his home and the quiet enjoyment thereof, while Defendants will suffer only monetary damages if injunctive relief is granted."

The court also found Moda had shown a prima facie case for wrongful eviction and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, citing Petroleum Collections, Inc. v. Swords (1975) and Guntert v. City of Stockton (1976).

Scope of the Preliminary Injunction (Active)

The PI granted against Cieszynski and Marenco prohibits them from:

Access

Unit 801 Access

Denying Moda access to Unit 801 at 889 Francisco Street.

Deliveries

Package & Mail Services

Refusing package delivery or mail services to Moda.

Amenities

Common Areas & Services

Restricting Moda's access to any common areas, amenities, or services.

The Preliminary Injunction remains in effect pending trial.

Cieszynski — Motion for Leave to File Anti-SLAPP — January 12, 2026

Judge: Hon. Richard L. Fruin  |  Department: 15, Stanley Mosk Courthouse  |  Nature of Proceedings: Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike Under CCP § 425.16

On January 12, 2026, Judge Fruin denied Cieszynski's Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Strike under CCP § 425.16. Cieszynski had filed this motion for leave on December 15, 2025.

The minute order reflects that both sides appeared by telephone — Plaintiff was represented by Vip Bhola (telephonic), with Kevin Moda also appearing. Defense appearances included Nathaniel S. Brown III, Tristan A. Mullis, Oleg Pariser, and Sitora Reznikov (all telephonic).

The Motion for Leave — Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike Under CCP § 425.16 filed by Joshua Cieszynski on 12/15/2025 is Denied. — Minute Order, January 12, 2026, Hon. Richard L. Fruin

This ruling was the first court finding that Cieszynski could not pursue anti-SLAPP relief, establishing the bar under CCP § 1008(b) against filing a successive motion. Notwithstanding this ruling, Cieszynski and Metro Property Management LLC filed a "new" Anti-SLAPP motion on February 26, 2026 — which was subsequently denied on June 15, 2026.

Cieszynski & Metro — Anti-SLAPP Motion — June 15, 2026

Judge: Hon. Cherol J. Nellon  |  Department: 300, Stanley Mosk Courthouse  |  Filed: February 26, 2026  |  Ruling Date: June 15, 2026

On June 15, 2026, Judge Nellon issued a ruling denying the Special Motion to Strike under CCP § 425.16 filed by Joshua Cieszynski and Metro Property Management LLC (Doe 2) on February 26, 2026. The matter had been taken under submission on May 18, 2026.

The court issued its written order this date. Both the Minute Order and the Court's separately signed written order were served on all counsel of record by certificate of mailing.

The Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) (CRS #8534) filed by Joshua Cieszynski, Metro Property Management, LLC (Doe 2) on 02/26/2026 is Denied. — Minute Order, June 15, 2026, Hon. Cherol J. Nellon

For a full analysis of the grounds for the June 15, 2026 denial, see the Motions & Rulings page, which details the four independent grounds: (1) untimeliness under CCP § 425.16(f); (2) successive motion bar under CCP § 1008(b); (3) the Flatley illegality exception; and (4) Plaintiff's established probability of prevailing on Prong 2.

Full Procedural Register

The Register of Actions (as of January 2, 2026) reflects the following key procedural events. Discovery motions are listed separately.

Date Filing / Event
July 7, 2025Complaint filed (11 causes of action)
July 8, 2025Summons served; personal service on Aghazarian, Cieszynski, Marenco; substituted service on APM
July 24–25, 2025TRO granted; OSC re Preliminary Injunction issued — Judge Chalfant, Dept. 85
August 6, 2025Cieszynski and Marenco file Answers + Cross-Complaints vs. Aghazarian
August 8, 2025Moda requests dismissal of APM from all causes
August 11, 2025Aghazarian files Answer + Cross-Complaint vs. Cieszynski and Marenco
August 14, 2025OSC continued to September 4 — defective service
August 14, 2025Moda serves Pariser by substituted service and mail
August 18, 2025APM dismissed from all causes of action
September 4, 2025Preliminary Injunction granted (vs. Cieszynski & Marenco); denied (vs. Aghazarian)
September 9, 2025Unlawful Detainer complaint filed by Aghazarian (separate action, Dept. 46)
September 11, 2025UD Notices of Unlawful Detainer served on Kevin Moda and all occupants
September 23, 2025Demurrer filed (without motion to strike)
September 25, 2025Motions to Compel filed (special interrogatories, form interrogatories, production)
September 30, 2025Two Anti-SLAPP Motions filed (Cieszynski and Marenco separately)
October 1, 2025Hearing on Demurrer held
October 4, 2025First Amended Complaint — Pariser substituted for Doe 1
October 6–8, 2025Ex Parte Applications re discovery order
October 22–30, 2025Discovery motion hearings (compel production, form interrogatories, deposition)
November 3–6, 2025Anti-SLAPP hearing dates (multiple continuances)
November 14, 2025Ruling on Submitted Matter re Anti-SLAPP hearing; Sitora Reznikov declaration filed
November 24, 2025Notice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy); Notice of Appeal filed; Ex Parte Application
December 15, 2025Cieszynski files Motion for Leave to File Anti-SLAPP
January 12, 2026Cieszynski's Motion for Leave to File Anti-SLAPP DENIED — Judge Fruin, Dept. 15
February 26, 2026Cieszynski & Metro file new Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike (CRS #8534)
May 18, 2026Anti-SLAPP matter taken under submission — Judge Nellon, Dept. 300
June 15, 2026Anti-SLAPP Motion DENIED — Judge Nellon, Dept. 300
August 12, 2026Hearing — MSA / Pending Motions (upcoming)