Status Dashboard

Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction

Temporary Restraining Order — July 24, 2025

Granted   Hon. James C. Chalfant, Dept. 85, Stanley Mosk Courthouse

Following the physical lockout of Unit 801 on July 17, 2025, Plaintiff moved on an emergency basis for a TRO. The court entered the order on July 24, 2025, enjoining the lockout conduct and ordering that Plaintiff's access to the unit and building be restored pending a hearing on the preliminary injunction.

Preliminary Injunction — September 4, 2025

Granted — In Effect   Hon. James C. Chalfant, Dept. 85, Stanley Mosk Courthouse

After a full briefing and hearing, Judge Chalfant granted the Preliminary Injunction on September 4, 2025. The court found that Plaintiff demonstrated a "limited probability of success" on the constructive eviction and harassment claims, and that the balance of harms favored an injunction.

The preliminary injunction orders Cieszynski and Marenco not to: deny Plaintiff access to Unit 801; refuse package delivery to the unit; or restrict Plaintiff's access to common areas. The injunction remains in force.

Under Sweetwater Union HSD v. Gilbane (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, the court's finding of "limited probability of success" at the preliminary injunction stage is admissible evidence of minimal merit for purposes of the anti-SLAPP Prong 2 analysis. — Plaintiff's Anti-SLAPP Opposition, Section V(A)

Anti-SLAPP Motions Under CCP § 425.16

First Anti-SLAPP Motion (Cieszynski) — Denied January 12, 2026

Denied on Merits   Dept. 15, Hon. Stuart M. Rice (Judge Fruin)

Defendant Cieszynski moved to strike Plaintiff's complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, arguing that the notices and communications at issue constituted protected petitioning activity. The court denied the motion on the merits on January 12, 2026.

This ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Second District Court of Appeal, which denied a writ petition challenging it (Writ No. B352287, March 5, 2026).

Amended Anti-SLAPP Motion (Metro Property Management) — Denied June 15, 2026

Denied   Dept. 14 / Dept. 39, Stanley Mosk Courthouse

After the Cieszynski denial, the Metropolis I Owners' Association obtained a § 170.6 peremptory challenge that reassigned the case to a new department. Eleven days later, Metro Property Management filed a motion captioned as an "Amended" anti-SLAPP. Plaintiff opposed on four independent grounds:

1. Untimeliness (CCP § 425.16(f)). MPM was added as a Doe defendant on December 15, 2025. Its anti-SLAPP was filed February 26, 2026 — 73 days later, exceeding the 60-day statutory window. MPM never sought or obtained leave to file late.

2. Improper Successive Application (CCP § 1008(b)). The court had already denied Cieszynski's virtually identical motion on the merits. MPM and Cieszynski share unity of interest, and MPM filed no affidavit showing new or different facts as required for a renewed motion.

3. Flatley Illegality Exception. Under Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect conduct "illegal as a matter of law." Plaintiff identified five independent illegality vectors: (a) unlicensed LLC brokerage (B&P §§ 10130–10131 — criminal misdemeanor under § 10139); (b) void Davis-Stirling discipline (Civ. Code § 5855); (c) self-help eviction (§§ 789.3, 1940.2); (d) LAMCP § 92.0134 elevator/common carrier duties; and (e) computer monitoring (Pen. Code §§ 631, 632).

4. Prong 1 Failure. The gravamen of Plaintiff's claims is noncommunicative adverse conduct — physical access revocation, package withholding, elevator denial, computer monitoring — not "speech" protected under § 425.16. (Park v. Board of Trustees (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057; Bonni v. St. Joseph (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995.)

The court denied the motion on June 15, 2026. The case against Cieszynski and Metro Property Management now proceeds to trial.

Key Exhibit: The "Fabrication Timeline"

Plaintiff's anti-SLAPP opposition placed significant emphasis on documentary evidence of the transition from the June 2 email to the Three-Day Notice:

CCP § 170.6 Peremptory Challenges

MPM's Challenge — Denied (Untimely), January 30, 2026

Denied   Court found the peremptory challenge untimely after the court had already ruled on the anti-SLAPP motion on the merits.

HOA's Challenge — Granted, February 17, 2026

Granted   The Metropolis I Owners' Association's peremptory challenge was accepted, resulting in reassignment of the case. Plaintiff contends this reassignment — filed just days before the "Amended" anti-SLAPP motion — was a coordinated tactical maneuver to obtain a new judge after the prior anti-SLAPP was denied on the merits, precisely the pattern condemned in Maas v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 962.

Writ B352287 — Second District Court of Appeal, March 5, 2026

Denied   Metro Property Management sought writ review of the § 170.6 ruling in the Court of Appeal. The Second District denied the petition on March 5, 2026, leaving the trial court's rulings intact.

Motions for Summary Adjudication (Plaintiff)

Plaintiff Kevin Moda filed motions for summary adjudication against individual defendants Cieszynski, Pariser, and Aghazarian, arguing that no triable issues of material fact exist on the core liability questions.

Against Cieszynski

Filed   The Cieszynski MSA relies on six independent grounds Plaintiff contends each separately entitle him to judgment as a matter of law:

• Ground 1
  Johnson v. Connie — Absolute Liability for Unlicensed Management

  Johnson v. Connie, LLC (2020) holds that a contract executed by an unlicensed property manager is void ab initio and no defenses are available. The Davidson Declaration proves Cieszynski was terminated February 29, 2024; thereafter all his management acts were unlicensed and void.

• Ground 2
  Gamet v. Blanchard — Unverified Answer Deemed Admissions

  Plaintiff's complaint is verified. Cieszynski's answer is not. Under CCP § 462 and Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, an unverified answer to a verified complaint has "no evidentiary value" and deems the material allegations admitted.

• Ground 3
  Civil Code § 1940.2 — Tenant Harassment Statutory Damages

  $2,000/week × 31 weeks = $62,000 per defendant in statutory harassment damages.

• Ground 4
  Civil Code § 789.3 — Self-Help Eviction Damages

  $100/day × 220 days = $22,000 per defendant in statutory self-help eviction damages.

• Ground 5
  Penal Code § 496c — Treble Damages

  Three times base damages = $252,000 per defendant, $504,000 combined.

• Ground 6
  Ratification Doctrine — Pariser Liability

  Pariser ratified Cieszynski's unlicensed acts through inaction and affirmative approval, establishing HOA and Pariser personal liability for all downstream torts.

Against Pariser

Filed   The Pariser MSA seeks summary adjudication on the breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims, grounded in the unilateral contract execution, the plagiarized contract terms, and the alleged perjury in the Pariser Declaration.

Against Aghazarian

Filed   The Aghazarian MSA addresses the landlord's liability for coordinating with Cieszynski in the fabrication of the disciplinary accusations and the drafting of the Three-Day Notice to Quit.