HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court erred by ruling a commercial lease’s holdover provision was an unlawful penalty. Defendants were at complete liberty to avoid the higher rent. They had merely to leave. Defendants failed to show this holdover provision amounted to an illegal liquidation of damages. Defendants never proved plaintiff had market power, which is the power a monopolist has to oppress consumers by setting price at the monopolist’s whim. Given this failure of proof, the trial court should have enforced the holdover agreement, which the parties had determined by their free, solemn and voluntary act; [2]-The trial court rightly found insufficient evidence to invoke the alter ego doctrine. While the evidence showed unity of interest and ownership, it did not show treating defendants as separate entities would promote injustice.

Nakase Law Firm provides more information on sexual harassment California


The portion of the judgment denying the landlord holdover rent was reversed. The judgment was otherwise affirmed, including the rejection of alter ego liability. Defendants’ cross appeal was dismissed. Defendants’ appeal from an order after judgment was reversed.