[01] INTERCEPT — Overview
Counts IV and V of Plaintiff's complaint allege that Joshua Cieszynski and Metro Property Management used the Metropolis I building's security camera system — a resident amenity in the Business Center — to deliberately monitor and record the contents of Plaintiff's personal laptop screen on at least 14 occasions, intercepting private communications, financial data, legal work, and medical records without consent.
These claims are independent of the lockout and access-revocation conduct at the center of the constructive eviction count. The surveillance allegations assert violations of federal and state wiretapping law, California's constitutional privacy right, and the HOA's own adopted surveillance policy.
[02] TARGET — The Business Center
The Metropolis I condominium at 889 Francisco Street maintains a residents-only Business Center — a private amenity space with workstations equipped with building security cameras. Residents used this space for legal correspondence, banking, medical-record access, and other sensitive personal activities.
Plaintiff alleges the Business Center cameras were high-definition units capable of remote adjustment, zoom, and repositioning to focus on specific workstations. Cieszynski and Metro Property Management staff had administrative access and control over the camera system, and used this access to target Plaintiff's workstation across 14 documented sessions.
No notice, terms of service, or warning of any kind informed residents that the content of personal device activity — what they typed, viewed, or transmitted — was subject to recording or monitoring. The only posted signage addressed general physical security. This absence of notice is material to both the state and federal legal theories.
[03] LOG — Alleged Interception Sessions
Plaintiff alleges 14 discrete surveillance events in which Cieszynski and/or Metro Property Management staff remotely manipulated the building cameras to zoom and focus directly on Plaintiff's laptop screen and keyboard. Each session constitutes an independent statutory violation.
| SESSION ID | STATUS | CONTENT CATEGORY | STATUTORY EXPOSURE |
|---|---|---|---|
| SV-001 | INTERCEPTED | Personal Communications | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-002 | INTERCEPTED | Financial / Banking | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-003 | INTERCEPTED | Legal Correspondence | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-004 | INTERCEPTED | Medical Records | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-005 | INTERCEPTED | Email / Messaging | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-006 | INTERCEPTED | Keystroke Activity | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-007 | INTERCEPTED | Web Session / Navigation | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-008 | INTERCEPTED | Personal Communications | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-009 | INTERCEPTED | Financial / Banking | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-010 | INTERCEPTED | Legal Correspondence | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-011 | INTERCEPTED | Attorney Communications | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-012 | INTERCEPTED | Keystroke / Screen Content | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-013 | INTERCEPTED | Medical / Healthcare | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
| SV-014 | INTERCEPTED | Web Session / Navigation | § 2520 + § 637.2 |
Personal Communications
Email and messaging composed on Plaintiff's laptop screen — intercepted by camera repositioned to zoom on active display.
Financial & Banking Data
Online banking sessions, financial statements, and account access conducted in the Business Center.
Legal Work & Filings
Attorney correspondence and court filings prepared in the Business Center.
Medical Records
Healthcare portal access and medical correspondence viewed in the Business Center.
Keystroke Logging
Alleged real-time capture of keystrokes and text entry visible on screen — the direct "intercept" theory under the Federal Wiretap Act.
Web Sessions
Browser activity and website navigation visible on the laptop screen during the alleged monitoring sessions.
[04] PRETEXT — The Reznikov Flash-Drive Incident
The "Lost Flash Drive" Pretext
Plaintiff alleges that the surveillance became acute in June 2025 when Defendant Aghazarian's own attorney, Sitora Reznikov, contacted Cieszynski claiming she had "lost a flash drive" in the Business Center. Plaintiff characterizes this as a manufactured justification — a pretext — for Cieszynski to conduct a detailed, targeted review of days of recorded surveillance footage targeting Plaintiff's computer activity.
Because Plaintiff had used his personal laptop only for legitimate work activities, Plaintiff argues the only way Cieszynski could construct an accusation of "computer hacking" — the charge later presented at the June 30 board hearing — was by actively monitoring Plaintiff's screen. The "lost flash drive" request, Plaintiff alleges, was the trigger for that review.
The transformation from "smelling an odor" (June 2 Marenco email) to "witnessed by two people urinating in public" (July 2025 Three-Day Notice) — combined with a "computer hacking" accusation that required monitoring Plaintiff's screen to fabricate — is evidence fabrication deployed as an eviction predicate against a whistleblower asking questions about HOA finances. — Plaintiff's Anti-SLAPP Opposition, Section V(C)
[05] CHAIN — The Surveillance-to-Eviction Causal Chain
Plaintiff alleges the surveillance is not merely an independent privacy violation — it is the mechanism by which the accused conduct was manufactured. The causal chain runs directly through the surveillance operations:
Reznikov's dual role — as a central actor in the alleged fabrication and as counsel of record in the resulting UD proceeding — is a factual connection Plaintiff highlights in the main case.
[06] STATUTES — Legal Theories & Exposure
Federal Wiretap Act — Electronic Interception
The Federal Wiretap Act prohibits the intentional interception of any "wire, oral, or electronic communication." The statute defines "electronic communication" broadly to encompass transmissions by electronic system, including data and content displayed on a screen and transmitted over a network.
Plaintiff's theory: deliberately manipulating a security camera to zoom in on the content of a personal laptop screen — particularly while the user is composing messages, accessing online accounts, or transmitting data — constitutes an "intercept" of the electronic communications visible on that screen. Keystroke capture is the most direct form.
California Wiretapping & Eavesdropping
Penal Code § 632 prohibits recording confidential communications without all-party consent. § 631 prohibits wiretapping. California courts have held that a residents-only amenity with no public-access warning creates a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of activity conducted there. (Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 272.)
California Constitutional Privacy & Common Law
California's constitutional right to privacy applies to private actors. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1.) Plaintiff argues all three required elements are met: personal computer activity in a residents-only space creates a legally protected interest; no content-monitoring warning was posted; and deliberate camera manipulation to read screen content is a serious intrusion.
The common-law tort of intrusion into private affairs (CACI 1800) provides an independent recovery path in addition to the constitutional theory.
HOA's Own Surveillance Policy
Plaintiff alleges the Metropolis I Video and Surveillance Policy — adopted by the Board including Pariser — expressly restricts security camera use to general area security and prohibits targeted monitoring of residents' private screen interactions. The alleged monitoring therefore violated the HOA's own adopted policy, making Cieszynski's conduct ultra vires and the Board's failure to prevent it a ratification of the violation.