Semler

This appeal raises the question of whether a commercial lending institution, which is also an equity investor in a borrower’s venture, violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (sometimes the Act) (Civ. Code, § 51) by declining to make a loan to a limited liability company because its managing member included a felon who had conspired to falsify customs documents and sell munitions to Syria.

We conclude that being a felon is not a personal characteristic similar to those enumerated in the Act; the lending institution had legitimate business reasons justifying its decision—the repayment of the loan and making a return on its equity investment; and the potential consequences of allowing *1384 such a claim would improperly involve the courts in second-guessing a lending institution’s expertise in determining loan and investment criteria.

I

BACKGROUND

The facts in this appeal are taken from the allegations of the complaint, which we accept as true. (See Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 8 , fin. 3 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ].)

A. Complaint

The complaint, filed on May 13, 2009, alleged as follows. On or about November 2, 2005, plaintiff Ronald H.…