Route 66 CPAs v. Glendora Courtyard CA2/1

Filed 3/23/16 Route 66 CPAs v. Glendora Courtyard CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

ROUTE 66 CPAs, LLC, B264055

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC066584) v.

GLENDORA COURTYARD, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dan T. Oki, Judge. Affirmed. John W. Melvin; Law Offices of Ezekiel E. Cortez, Ezekiel E. Cortez and Joshi A. Valentine for Defendants and Appellants. Mahoney & Soll, Paul M. Mahoney and Richard A. Soll for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Glendora Courtyard, LLC (Glendora) and Equity Ag Financial, Inc. (EAF) appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion to strike the second amended complaint of Route 66 CPAs, LLC (Route 66) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 We affirm. BACKGROUND Route 66 owns one, and Glendora owns two, of the three office buildings in Glendora Courtyard, a commercial development which includes a surrounding parking lot, landscaping, driveways, sidewalks, and hardscape (the common area). At the time this lawsuit was filed, a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) governed the management of the common area. Route 66 was responsible for 42.95 percent of the common area expenses, and Glendora was responsible for 57.05 percent, with payment due each month. Glendora was the maintenance director for the development, and EAF was the property manager beginning in February 2012. The prior lawsuit In late 2011, a dispute arose between Glendora and Route 66. Route 66 believed Glendora’s planned improvements to the common area were unacceptable, too expensive, and not authorized by the CC&Rs. In January 2012, Glendora demanded that Route 66 agree to the budgeted improvements, which would drastically increase Route 66’s share of monthly expenses. When discussions did not result in a resolution, on April 9, 2012, Route 66 filed a complaint against Glendora alleging breaches of the CC&Rs and seeking an injunction against the improvements and declaratory relief. The trial court denied Route 66’s requested preliminary injunction. Glendora then filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity, interference with prospective economic advantage, and breaches of contract, alleging that under the CC&Rs it had the authority as maintenance director to make the proposed improvements. Route 66 filed a special motion to strike under section 425.16, contending that Glendora’s cross-complaint targeted a series of letters between the parties regarding the