Overview

Metropolis I at 889 Francisco Street, Los Angeles is a 308-unit high-rise condominium governed by a layered set of documents: the Master CC&Rs (recorded March 25, 2016), the Metropolis I CC&Rs (recorded August 26, 2016), and the Member Rules and Regulations Packet (most recent version: June 15, 2020). These documents establish the rights and obligations of owners, tenants, and the management — and define the enforcement procedures that Plaintiff contends were abused to manufacture grounds for his eviction.

The governing documents are central to this litigation in three ways. First, they establish the sublease prohibition that Aghazarian relies on in the UD action. Second, they specify the enforcement and disciplinary procedure that the HOA failed to follow — including the hearing notice requirement that Plaintiff alleges was violated at the June 30, 2025 board proceeding. Third, they define the scope of the HOA's authority over common area access and security cameras — both of which are directly at issue in the constructive eviction and surveillance claims.

Governing Document Hierarchy

Metropolis I is part of the larger Metropolis Los Angeles community, a mixed-use master-planned development consisting of a hotel, three high-rise residential towers, commercial condominiums, and open spaces. The governance structure is layered:

Rental of Condominiums — The Sublease Prohibition

The Rules and Regulations devote an entire section to rental restrictions. These provisions are directly at issue in the UD action (25STUD09596) and in the factual background of the main case.

Key Rental Restrictions

Relevance to This Case

The structure of Moda's occupancy — as Stuppel's subtenant, with Stuppel as Aghazarian's direct tenant — implicates this prohibition directly. Under the Rules and Regulations, Aghazarian (as Owner) is responsible for ensuring Stuppel's compliance with all Governing Documents, including the sublease prohibition. Aghazarian's obligation to "cure" any tenant default would require him to take action against Stuppel, not against Moda directly. Plaintiff's position is that Aghazarian instead bypassed this owner-responsibility framework and used the HOA machinery directly against Moda — an approach not authorized by the governing documents.

Enforcement Procedure — What the Rules Require

The Rules and Regulations specify a mandatory enforcement procedure before any disciplinary action can be taken against an owner or resident. This procedure is directly relevant to Plaintiff's claim that the June 30, 2025 board hearing was a sham proceeding held without proper notice.

Standard Enforcement Procedure

When two or more members file a Non-Compliance Report, the Association is required to take the following steps in sequence:

The Alleged Procedure Violations

Plaintiff alleges that the June 30, 2025 board hearing violated this mandatory enforcement procedure on multiple grounds. First, Plaintiff alleges he received no prior written notice of the specific accusations (public urination, voyeurism, computer hacking) before the hearing. Second, Plaintiff alleges he received no hearing notice with the requisite ten-day advance period. Third, Plaintiff alleges the hearing was convened without his knowledge or opportunity to appear. The July 3, 2025 Notice of Decision — issued three days after the hearing — was the first document Plaintiff received, by which time the access revocation had already been decided.

CC&Rs Section 5.1.22 provides that the Association "shall have the right and power to suspend an owner's or resident's right to use the aforementioned (or any other) recreational facilities, for any single infraction of the Association's governing documents." However, this suspension right is still subject to the notice and hearing requirements of the enforcement procedure — suspension without proper notice is itself a violation of the governing documents.

Business Center Rules

The Met 6 Amenity Deck on the 6th floor of Metropolis I includes the Business Center at the heart of Plaintiff's surveillance claims. The Rules and Regulations define the Business Center's authorized use — and, by implication, what uses fall outside the scope of authorized camera monitoring.

Significance to Surveillance Claims

The Business Center is described in the governing documents as a residents-only amenity space. Its authorized purposes — work, correspondence, access to online banking and medical records, personal productivity — are precisely the activities Plaintiff alleges were monitored by Cieszynski using the building's security camera system. The governing documents describe the purpose of the amenity space but contain no provision authorizing targeted monitoring of the content of residents' personal devices. Plaintiff's surveillance page details how this absence of authorization is relevant to both federal and state privacy claims.

General Fine Schedule

The Rules and Regulations include a General Fine Schedule that governs monetary penalties after the enforcement procedure has been followed. The actual fine schedule the HOA applied — or purported to apply — to Moda's situation is a disputed fact in the case. The published schedule provides context for evaluating whether the sanctions ultimately imposed were proportionate to any legitimate rule violation.

The sanctions actually applied in this case — total revocation of all common area access, package receipt, front desk communication, and maintenance services as stated in the July 3, 2025 Notice of Decision — are nowhere authorized in the General Fine Schedule. Plaintiff argues that the severity of the sanctions, far exceeding anything in the published fine schedule, is evidence that the disciplinary process was being misused to achieve an eviction, not to enforce building rules.

Access Control System

The governing documents establish that Metropolis is equipped with a key fob system controlling access to building gates, parking, elevators, pool, gym, and other common areas. Each unit is assigned a defined number of fobs based on unit size: studio — up to 3 fobs; 1-bedroom — up to 4 fobs; 2-bedroom — up to 5 fobs; 3-bedroom/penthouse — up to 6 fobs.

The access control system's capabilities — and Cieszynski's administrative access to it — are directly relevant to both the access revocation claims and the surveillance claims. The same system that controls building access also interfaces with the security camera network that Plaintiff alleges was used to monitor his computer activity.

Rule 6 states that "all residents may be requested to present identification, to Management or other agents of the Association, upon request." This provision does not authorize suspension or revocation of access as a punitive measure — it addresses identity verification for building security purposes only.

Governing Documents in This Litigation