Grand Prospect Partners v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FRANSON, J.
This appeal addresses whether cotenancy provisions 1 in a lease for retail space in a shopping center are unconscionable or unreasonable penalties and, thus, not binding on the landlord. The enforceability of cotenancy provisions has not been discussed in an opinion published by a California appellate court. This opinion does not establish a categorical rule of law holding cotenancy provisions always, or never, are enforceable. Instead, it illustrates that the determination whether a cotenancy provision is unconscionable or an unreasonable penalty depends heavily on the…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Ora Lee Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, William Thorne v. Walker-Thomas Furniture CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Catherine Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., a Virginia CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Oto, L. L.C. v. KhoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- Lorrie Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Abraham Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2023
- Jose Ronderos v. Usf Reddaway, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
- Krechuniak v. NoorzoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.