On average, about a dozen or more newlywed couples kick off their happily-ever-afters at Los Alamos’ Plenty on Bell a year, restaurant co-owner Christine Gallagher told the Sun.
Compared to previous years where wedding receptions and rehearsal dinners got booked far in advance, the small-town eatery’s 2026 roster is less plentiful than usual, in light of recent circumstances, she explained.
“We have a couple in March but nothing much beyond that,” Gallagher said. “We’re hardly getting any calls. And I understand that. I wouldn’t book a wedding here for next summer, because who knows where we’ll be.”
Last October, the owner of the Bell Street property where Plenty on Bell has stood since 2015 sued Gallagher and her business partner—restaurateur and chef Jesper Johansson—for eviction. The complaint alleges that the business’ two co-owners are $85,000 behind in overdue rent.
“I think the main issue stems from whether these non-base rent amounts are considered rent or not. That’s the big disagreement between the parties,” said attorney Robert Forouzandeh, who represents the property’s landlord, Noah Rowles.
The $85,000 sum is made up of site inspection fees, estimated maintenance costs, and other line items that fall under the umbrella of rent as it’s described in Plenty on Bell’s lease agreement, according to the plaintiff, who bought the property in 2025.
“We believe the prior owner wasn’t on top of it. A lot of the building has not been kept up the way it was supposed to be kept up,” Forouzandeh told the Sun. “It falls upon the tenant’s responsibility to maintain this stuff. It’s a commercial lease.”
More than half of the $85,000 Plenty on Bell allegedly owes amounts to a projected $45,000 price tag on upgrading the restaurant’s roof.
Estimates for future plumbing, painting, and electrical work at the restaurant that total about $33,000, based on a contractor’s proposal, were also included in the eviction complaint.
“Any monetary obligation owed to the landlord under the lease is considered rent, … not just rent itself,” Forouzandeh said. “The tenant’s position is all these things, like paying for repairs, … if they don’t pay that, that doesn’t count as rent. So you can’t then go and kick them out. You have to go do something else, like sue them for breach of contract. That’s not our position.”
In late November of last year, Plenty on Bell’s attorney, David Browne, countered the October lawsuit with a demurrer that challenged the plaintiff’s interpretation of the lease agreement.
While the eviction complaint cites one part of the restaurant’s lease, which defines monetary obligations outside of base rent as rent, Browne pointed to a separate clause while arguing that cost estimates for work not yet completed don’t fall into the general rent category.
“This provision expressly requires that the lessor actually perform the work in question. It does not authorize the lessor to charge the lessee for the estimated cost to perform a maintenance or repair item and collect the estimated expenses as rent,” Browne’s demurrer states. “The lessee’s obligation to pay arises only after the lessor in fact spends the money to perform the repair, and can then claim reimbursement.”
Browne also noted that the eviction complaint refers to multiple warning notices that weren’t included as attachments in the lawsuit, warnings the plaintiff issued Plenty on Bell from as early as July 2025.
“The sufficiency of the notices cannot be established by reference to documents that are not attached as exhibits,” Browne stated. “The notices that form the basis for the action are a required part of the complaint, and only that which is attached can establish the validity of the notices. … This proceeding represents an improper effort to coerce defendants from the premises based on legally invalid paperwork.”
Attorney for the plaintiff Forouzandeh told the Sun that those notices will “obviously be pieces of evidence at trial if that becomes necessary.”
After the Sun’s press time on Jan. 20, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge James Rigali was set to weigh in on the lawsuit and decide whether or not to grant Plenty on Bell’s demurrer. If the case goes to trial, a hearing is scheduled for Jan. 27.
“We either go to trial or, if cooler heads prevail, we settle it beforehand,” Forouzandeh said. “They were given so many chances to remedy and rectify this a long time ago and they chose not to. … They chose to take this path instead.”
His client, plaintiff Rowles, also owns Dovecote Estate Winery on Alisos Canyon Road near Los Alamos. When news of Rowles’ lawsuit against Plenty on Bell spread in late 2025, so did a rumor about his intentions for the property.
“The false statement being circulated is that he wants to kick this tenant out so that he can bring in his own winery. We don’t know where that came from,” Forouzandeh said. “This isn’t some play to get rid of the tenant so that he can bring his own winery in there. … If you have a vacant commercial property, you obviously find the best possible tenant to fill it. Now, whether that ends up being [another] restaurant or something else, I don’t know, it just depends on what potential tenants come along after.”
On Dec. 16, 2025, Rowles filed a lawsuit in Santa Barbara Superior Court against Facebook users Anonymous Member 401 and Anonymous Member 562 for posting “false and defamatory statements about plaintiff on a local community Facebook group and related online community pages” regarding to the Plenty on Bell property. The suit seeks more than $35,000 in damages.
On Dec. 18, the court granted Rowles’ attorneys, Travis C. Logue and Lawrence J. Conlan, the expedited discovery order request, which seeks to “unmask” the anonymous Facebook users so they can be provided with notice of the lawsuit. A case management conference for the lawsuit is scheduled for April 17.
Plenty on Bell co-owner Gallagher said she believes Rowles’ efforts to evict the restaurant were part of a plan to open a new Dovecote tasting room from the get-go.
“We have no exit strategy at this point except to fight this to the bitter end,” Gallagher said. “[But] we’ve had some really low points, … times of, ‘Let’s just shut the doors and run for the hills’ kind of thing. We’ve had some tough times.”
To help cover Plenty on Bell’s legal expenses amid the lawsuit, the restaurant hosted a dinner fundraiser in November. Local winemakers, who donated libations served at the event, were among the community members who turned up to show their support for the popular eatery.
“People came that were sentimentally attached to the place,” Gallagher said. “If we continue with horrible legal fees, we’ll have another event in the spring.”
Reach Senior Staff Writer Caleb Wiseblood at cwiseblood@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in January 22 – January 29, 2026.