The One Experience v. Loomstein CA2/3

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We summarize the relevant facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing the anti-SLAPP motion. (Murray v. Tran (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 10, 16 (Murray), citing Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1067 (Park).) 1. Background Plaintiff produces an annual arts and music festival marketed as the One Love Festival (the Festival). The company’s managing member is Kenneth Schwenker. In 2017, plaintiff hired defendant as the controller and manager of community sales for the Festival. Defendant

Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise designated.

2 understood his primary responsibility was to keep the Festival on budget; however, according to defendant, Schwenker “did not adhere to the original deal” and limited defendant’s job to only community sales. The Festival lost approximately $260,000 that year, and many of the performers were not paid for their services. Defendant was apprehensive about working with plaintiff or Schwenker again after the 2017 Festival. However, a mutual friend told him that Schwenker had been misled by his previous business…