EEL Holdings v. LA Church CA4/1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

In January 2019, LAC (as lessor) and EEL (as lessee), entered into a commercial lease for specified property in San Bernardino (previously identified as the Lease for the Premises). Approximately a month later, Lewis (as guarantor) executed a guaranty of the Lease (previously identified as the Guaranty). At no time has EEL occupied the Premises. After EEL took possession of the Premises, there were incidents of vagrancy and trespassing; and in August and October 2019, there were fires at the Premises. At that time, LAC and EEL disagreed as to who was responsible for insurance and whether the Lease had been terminated by a total destruction of the Premises. Days after the second fire, LAC filed the underlying action. LAC named EEL and Lewis as defendants, alleging the following four causes of action: (1) breach of contracts (the Lease and the Guaranty); (2) breach of the

In making its determination whether a claim is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, “the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(2); see City of Cotati…