Overview
After Plaintiff Kevin Moda filed his complaint against Argam Aghazarian, Joshua Cieszynski, Frank Marenco, and their associated entities, each of the three individual defendants turned on each other. The resulting cross-complaints reveal the defendants' own theories of who is responsible for the conduct Moda alleges.
The cross-complaints are significant for two reasons. First, they constitute admissions by each defendant that the underlying conduct occurred — the disputes are about fault allocation, not denial of the events themselves. Second, Cieszynski's and Marenco's cross-complaints against Aghazarian directly corroborate Moda's theory that Aghazarian directed the management and discipline conduct that led to the lockout and access revocations.
Cieszynski & Metro PM vs. Aghazarian
Cieszynski and Metro Property Management LLC cross-complained against Aghazarian for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, contribution, total indemnity, and declaratory relief.
Marenco vs. Aghazarian
Frank Marenco filed a separate cross-complaint against Aghazarian asserting the same theories — equitable indemnity, apportionment, contribution, total indemnity, and declaratory relief.
Aghazarian vs. Cieszynski & Marenco
Aghazarian cross-complained back against Cieszynski and Marenco for equitable indemnity, implied contractual indemnity, equitable contribution, and declaratory relief.
Cross-Complaint 1: Cieszynski & Metro Property Management vs. Aghazarian
Cross-Complainants
Joshua Cieszynski, individually and as managing member of Metro Property Management LLC
Cross-Defendant
Argam Aghazarian
Causes of Action
Equitable Indemnity
Cieszynski contends that to the extent he is found liable to Moda, Aghazarian must indemnify him — because the conduct complained of was carried out at Aghazarian's direction, pursuant to the management contract, and in service of Aghazarian's goal of removing Moda from the building.
Equitable indemnity in California allows a defendant to shift all or a portion of its liability to a third party who is also at fault. (BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848.)
Apportionment of Fault
In the alternative, Cieszynski seeks apportionment of comparative fault among all defendants under American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, which established the right of joint tortfeasors to seek contribution based on proportionate fault.
Cieszynski's position is that if he bears any responsibility, Aghazarian bears a greater share of it as the party who controlled and directed the conduct.
Contribution
Contribution allows a co-obligor who has paid more than its proportionate share of a common liability to recover from co-obligors. Cieszynski's contribution claim runs parallel to apportionment and provides an independent recovery path if apportionment is unavailable for any cause of action.
Total Indemnity
For causes of action where Cieszynski contends he bears no independent responsibility — including any claims arising solely from Aghazarian's direction as unit owner and landlord — he seeks total (100%) indemnification from Aghazarian. This theory requires a showing that Cieszynski's role was entirely ministerial.
Declaratory Relief
Cieszynski seeks a judicial declaration of the respective rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the cross-complaint claims, establishing the framework for any ultimate indemnity or contribution award at trial.
Significance for Plaintiff's Case
Cieszynski's cross-complaint is significant for Plaintiff's theory because it acknowledges that (a) management decisions were made within a principal-agent relationship with Aghazarian, (b) Aghazarian exercised direction and control over the property management conduct, and (c) the proper allocation of responsibility runs from Aghazarian as the unit owner. These admissions directly support Plaintiff's constructive eviction and harassment claims that Aghazarian orchestrated the scheme to remove Moda.
Cross-Complaint 2: Marenco vs. Aghazarian
Cross-Complainant
Frank Marenco, individually
Cross-Defendant
Argam Aghazarian
Background
Frank Marenco is the Metropolis I resident whose June 2, 2025 email to Cieszynski — reporting an unspecified odor in the sauna area — became the factual seed for the cascade of disciplinary actions against Moda. Marenco filed his own separate cross-complaint against Aghazarian asserting identical theories to Cieszynski's cross-complaint.
Causes of Action
Equitable Indemnity
Marenco contends that if his June 2 report to management formed the factual basis for adverse action against Moda — and if Marenco is found to bear any liability for defamation or other torts — Aghazarian must indemnify him because Aghazarian's counsel subsequently transformed and amplified Marenco's original report into specific criminal accusations never made by Marenco.
Apportionment of Fault
To the extent any liability is found based on the June 2 odor report, Marenco seeks apportionment that isolates his limited role from the subsequent fabrication and amplification of the accusations by Aghazarian's counsel and Cieszynski.
Contribution
Marenco's contribution claim parallels Cieszynski's — if both he and Aghazarian are found jointly liable to Moda, Marenco seeks recovery from Aghazarian for the portion attributable to Aghazarian's escalation and amplification of the original report.
Total Indemnity
For the defamation per se claims specifically, Marenco argues he bears no independent liability because his original June 2 report contained no false statements — it merely noted an odor. The subsequent transformation of that report into accusations of public urination and voyeurism was Aghazarian's doing, not Marenco's, warranting total indemnification.
Declaratory Relief
Marenco seeks a declaration establishing the parties' respective rights and obligations with respect to the original report and its subsequent use by Aghazarian's principals and counsel.
The June 2 Fabrication Theory
Marenco's cross-complaint highlights what Plaintiff characterizes as the key fabrication timeline. Marenco's original June 2, 2025 email to Cieszynski described only smelling an odor near the sauna — no eyewitness identification, no accusation of a specific person, no claim of witnessing any act. By the time Aghazarian's counsel drafted the Three-Day Notice to Quit in late June and July 2025, the same incident had been transformed into a statement that Moda was "witnessed by two people urinating in public" and a voyeurism accusation was added. Marenco's cross-complaint effectively pins responsibility for that transformation on Aghazarian.
Cross-Complaint 3: Aghazarian vs. Cieszynski & Marenco
Cross-Complainant
Argam Aghazarian, individually and as landlord of Unit 801
Cross-Defendants
Joshua Cieszynski, Metro Property Management LLC, and Frank Marenco
Background
Aghazarian filed a cross-complaint asserting that, to the extent he is found liable to Moda, Cieszynski and Marenco are responsible — either because they independently took actions beyond Aghazarian's direction, or because they made representations and reports on which Aghazarian relied. Aghazarian's cross-complaint differs from the others in one key respect: it asserts implied contractual indemnity in addition to equitable theories, arising from the management relationship.
Causes of Action
Equitable Indemnity
Aghazarian asserts that Cieszynski, as property manager, took actions in his own capacity and beyond the scope of Aghazarian's instructions — including the alleged surveillance conduct — for which Cieszynski must indemnify Aghazarian if those actions generate liability.
Implied Contractual Indemnity
The management agreement between Aghazarian (or the HOA, as the contracting party) and Metro Property Management LLC contains standard property management indemnity provisions. Aghazarian's cross-complaint invokes these provisions, asserting that Cieszynski's conduct in managing the property exposes Aghazarian to liability that the contract was meant to cover.
This theory is the only express contractual claim in the cross-complaint landscape — the others are purely equitable.
Equitable Contribution
As to Marenco specifically, Aghazarian seeks equitable contribution based on Marenco's role as the originating complainant. Aghazarian's position is that Marenco initiated the disciplinary chain by filing the June 2 report, and that Marenco's independent decision to report triggered the downstream conduct.
Declaratory Relief
Aghazarian seeks a judicial declaration clarifying the obligations of Cieszynski, Metro PM, and Marenco to indemnify or contribute to any judgment entered against Aghazarian in the main action.
The Contract Defense
Aghazarian's implied contractual indemnity claim is complicated by two facts developed in the main litigation. First, the management contract between Metro Property Management LLC and the Metropolis I HOA was executed by HOA Board President Oleg Pariser — not by Aghazarian personally. Second, Plaintiff's forensic analysis of that contract revealed that Page 17 still bore the name "Action Property Management, Inc." — the company Cieszynski was fired from — in a pricing clause, suggesting the document was a plagiarized template. Whether Aghazarian has independent standing to invoke contractual indemnity from a contract he did not sign is a threshold question in the cross-complaint.
The Three-Way Dispute: Who Directed Whom?
The cross-complaints reveal three irreconcilable positions:
We were acting at Aghazarian's direction as unit owner. He controlled the strategy, hired counsel (Reznikov) who directed our actions, and used the HOA management structure as a tool to pressure his own subtenant. Any liability belongs with Aghazarian as the directing party.
Cieszynski acted beyond the scope of any instructions by conducting surveillance and manufacturing the computer-hacking accusation. Marenco independently chose to file the June 2 complaint. I relied on their representations. If there is liability, it belongs with those who initiated and executed the conduct.
For Plaintiff Kevin Moda, the three-way dispute among defendants is evidence that corroborates the complaint: each defendant's own pleadings acknowledge that a coordinated scheme occurred — the only question among defendants is who bears the blame for it. That cross-defendant admissions implicate a common scheme supports Moda's conspiracy and harassment theories.
The preliminary injunction decision (September 4, 2025) addressed the parties in separate tranches precisely because of this complexity: Judge Chalfant denied the injunction against Aghazarian while granting it against Cieszynski and Marenco, reflecting the court's initial assessment that the latter two bore primary responsibility for the direct physical-access conduct while Aghazarian's liability remained more contested.
Procedural Posture of Cross-Complaints
All three cross-complaints were filed during the early phase of the litigation. They are pending and have not been adjudicated. The cross-complaints will be tried in the same proceeding as the main action, which is set for trial on September 14, 2026 before Judge Chalfant in Department 85 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
The anti-SLAPP motion filed by Cieszynski and Metro Property Management LLC in February 2026 — denied by Judge Nellon on June 15, 2026 — also covered allegations relevant to the cross-complaints, as Cieszynski argued that the notices and communications at issue were protected petitioning activity. The denial of that motion means those claims survive and will proceed to trial.
| Cross-Complaint | Filed By | Against | Theories | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC-1: Cieszynski & Metro PM v. Aghazarian | Joshua Cieszynski / Metro PM LLC | Argam Aghazarian | Equitable indemnity, apportionment, contribution, total indemnity, declaratory relief | Pending |
| CC-2: Marenco v. Aghazarian | Frank Marenco | Argam Aghazarian | Equitable indemnity, apportionment, contribution, total indemnity, declaratory relief | Pending |
| CC-3: Aghazarian v. Cieszynski & Marenco | Argam Aghazarian | Cieszynski, Metro PM LLC, Marenco | Equitable indemnity, implied contractual indemnity, equitable contribution, declaratory relief | Pending |