This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On February 27, 2018, P and D entered into a lease (the 'Lease') of office space located at 745 Olive Street, Suite 109. D's lease was for a term of 40 months for the operation of a medical clinic, beginning March 1, 2018, and ending June 30, 2021. Yerrapragada (D) executed a personal guaranty in her individual capacity of D's obligations under the Lease. Yerrapragada was removed as a member/manager of D on June 4, 2018, and was replaced by Jennifer Dunn. D vacated the Premises without notice to P in March 2020 and stopped paying rent. P was informed by maintenance personnel in early April 2020 that there was a sign on the door stating that D was no longer at the Premises, most of the furniture, office equipment, and decorative items had been removed, and the keys to the Premises were placed in a bag and left on the reception counter. On April 21, 2020, P made a written demand on Ds for payment of all outstanding amounts due under the Lease, which included past due and accelerated rent. The demand letter did not inform Ds that P would be retaking possession of the property. P filed its Petition for Past Due Rent and Other Damages. Ds filed an answer admitting that D entered into a lease agreement and that they vacated the Premises in April 2020. Ds also admitted that P is entitled to recover attorney fees incurred in seeking all amounts due under the Lease. Ds denied the remainder of P's allegations. In October 2020, P removed D's sign from the office door and its name from the building directory, rekeyed the property to a vacancy master, did not reissue the designated parking space, and listed the property on marketing sites. P filed a motion for summary judgment for Ds' breach of the Lease by abandonment and seeking recovery of damages from D in the amount of the Rent Balance, attorney fees, plus interest, and from Yerrapragada (D) as a solidary obligor pursuant to the Guaranty. Ds argued that P failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish abandonment and that P was not entitled to accelerated rent because P retook possession of the Premises without first providing proper notice to Ds. Yerrapragada (D) argued that she was not personally bound under the Guaranty because it was invalid. The trial court granted P's motion for summary judgment and found that Yerrapragada (D) was liable as well. Ds appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.