CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
OKLAHOMA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1373

OKC-NHP, LLC v. BOSQUET, LLC

Filed: Feb 19, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest—$51,300 for not running a business is the kind of math that makes you wonder if the tenant was supposed to be paying rent or just vibing in a commercial space like it was a timeshare at a haunted resort. But no, this isn’t some avant-garde performance art piece titled “Capitalism: The Empty Storefront Years.” This is a real, live lawsuit filed in Oklahoma County where a landlord is suing a ghosted business and its guarantor for nearly $52,000 in unpaid rent after the tenant vanished like a magician at a divorce party—poof, gone, didn’t even leave a forwarding address (or, more importantly, the keys).

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got OKC-NHP, LLC—the landlord, a Delaware-registered entity with all the soul of a spreadsheet and the personality of a parking ticket. They own a strip of retail space in Nichols Hills Plaza, a fancy-ish shopping area in Oklahoma City where you’d expect to find a boutique selling artisanal candles or a yoga studio with a juice bar that charges $14 for something called “Moon Water.” On the other side: BOSQUET, LLC, an Oklahoma-based company that apparently set up shop at 6465 Avondale Drive, and Allison Holmes, an individual who signed on as the personal guarantor—basically the financial wingman who said, “Yeah, I’ll back this lease, no big deal,” probably while sipping a lavender latte and not imagining she’d one day be on the hook for fifty grand. The relationship here is classic commercial real estate: one party owns the space, the other promised to occupy it, pay rent, and keep the lights on. Instead, they delivered the retail version of ghosting—abrupt silence, emotional damage, and a lease left in shambles.

Now, let’s walk through the drama. Back in March 2021, BOSQUET, LLC signed a lease for about 1,700 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The lease was set to kick in once they opened for business—or within 90 days of the landlord saying the space was ready. Then, in July 2021, they amended the lease to set a hard commencement date: October 1, 2021, or whenever they opened, whichever came first. They opened on September 30, 2021—cutting it close, but hey, let’s call it a win. The lease was supposed to run for five years, expiring in September 2026. Allison Holmes, bless her legally overconfident heart, signed a guaranty saying she’d personally cover everything if BOSQUET, LLC flaked out. We’re talking rent, fees, damages, even the landlord’s therapy bills (okay, not literally, but attorneys’ fees are included, so same energy).

For a few years, things seemed… fine? The filing doesn’t say what BOSQUET, LLC was selling—was it candles? Custom dog sweaters? A pop-up NFT gallery? We may never know. But whatever it was, it apparently wasn’t profitable enough to keep the lights on. Because in August 2025, the rent stopped getting paid. And didn’t start again. For seven months. Not a single payment. And then, around November 15, 2025, the business just… evaporated. They shut down operations, pulled out all their inventory and equipment, disconnected their phone and email—full corporate witness protection mode. But here’s the kicker: they didn’t return the keys. So picture this: a vacant storefront, silent and dark, with no business inside, no staff, no customers… but also, no keys handed back. It’s like they left the keys in the ignition of a car parked in a haunted mall.

And let’s talk about the lease terms, because this is where things get spicy. The lease didn’t just say “pay rent or else.” Oh no. It had clauses. One of them said that if the tenant stops operating, the daily rent increases by 50%. So it’s not just that they owed rent—they owed escalated rent for every day they weren’t open. That’s like if your gym membership didn’t just charge you for the months you didn’t go, but extra because you could’ve gone. It’s rent with a side of guilt. And according to the landlord, that little clause helped rack up $51,300.79 in damages—yes, down to the penny, because accountants don’t do round numbers when they’re mad.

So why are we in court? Because the landlord wants its money. And they’re suing on two fronts. First, for breach of lease—meaning BOSQUET, LLC broke the contract by not paying rent and by abandoning the space. Second, for breach of guaranty—meaning Allison Holmes, as the personal guarantor, now has to pony up because the business didn’t fulfill its promises. In plain English: “You said you’d pay if they didn’t. They didn’t. So pay.” It’s not a complicated legal theory, but it’s the financial equivalent of “you broke it, you bought it”—except the thing that got broken was a business relationship, and the thing being bought is a five-figure debt.

Now, what do they want? $51,300.79. Is that a lot? Well, for a small business that folded, yes—obviously. But in the world of commercial leases, especially in a decent retail location, that’s not an outrageous sum. We’re talking about nearly $7,300 a month for seven months, plus penalties. That’s not insane for 1,700 square feet in a shopping plaza—especially if the lease included common area maintenance, insurance, and other fees. The real sting isn’t the amount, though. It’s the principle. The landlord didn’t just lose rent—they lost a tenant who ghosted them, left the space empty, and forced them to go through the hassle of re-leasing, cleaning, possibly renovating. And don’t forget: they’re also asking for attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. So this could easily balloon past $60,000. That’s not just a slap on the wrist. That’s a full-body financial flogging.

Here’s our take: the most absurd part isn’t the money. It’s the keys. The fact that BOSQUET, LLC took the time to disconnect their email and haul out their inventory but couldn’t be bothered to hand over the keys is the retail equivalent of leaving your Netflix password in the group chat after ghosting your friends. It’s petty. It’s unprofessional. It’s the kind of detail that makes you wonder if this was intentional—like they thought, “If we don’t return the keys, does the lease still count?” Spoiler: it does. And now Allison Holmes is probably regretting every life choice that led her to sign that guaranty. Because that’s the real tragedy here—not that a business failed (that happens), but that someone trusted a sinking ship enough to jump on board as a personal life raft.

We’re not rooting for the landlord to get rich. But we are rooting for accountability. If you sign a lease—and someone signs a guaranty—you don’t just vanish into the ether like a cryptid. You don’t leave a dark, empty store with the keys still in the lock. You don’t treat a commercial lease like a Tinder date you never text back. This isn’t just about rent. It’s about basic decency. And in the petty civil court circus, sometimes the most dramatic acts aren’t the ones with screaming matches or bizarre evidence—they’re the quiet disappearances, the unpaid bills, the keys that were never returned. And that, folks, is how you turn a retail lease into a modern-day morality play.

Case Overview

Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$51,301 Monetary
Plaintiffs
  • OKC-NHP, LLC business
    Rep: John M. "Jake" Krattiger, Cole T. McDaniel
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Breach of Lease Tenant failed to pay rent and breached lease agreement
2 Breach of Guaranty of Lease Guarantor failed to fulfill obligations under lease agreement

Docket Events

24 entries
  • 02/20/2026
    CCADMINCSF
    COURT CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ON COURTHOUSE SECURITY PER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
    1.00
  • 02/20/2026
    DCADMINCSF
    DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ON COURTHOUSE SECURITY PER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
    1.50
  • 02/20/2026
    DCADMIN10
    DISTRICT COURT ADMIN FEE FOR $10 COLLECTION
    1.50
  • 02/20/2026
    LTF
    LENGTHY TRIAL FUND
    10.00
  • 02/20/2026
    CCADMIN0155
    COURT CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ON $1.55 COLLECTION
    0.16
  • 02/20/2026
    CONTRACT
    BREACH OF AGREEMENT - CONTRACT
  • 02/20/2026
    OCISR
    OKLAHOMA COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM REVOLVING FUND
    25.00
  • 02/20/2026
    EAA
    ENTRY OF APPEARANCE - JOHN M "JAKE" KRATTIGER FOR PLAINTIFF
    📄 View Document
  • 02/20/2026
    TEXT
    CIVIL RELIEF MORE THAN $10,000 INITIAL FILING.
  • 02/20/2026
    EAA
    ENTRY OF APPEARANCE - COLE MCDANIEL FOR PLAINTIFF
    📄 View Document
  • 02/20/2026
    PFE1
    PETITION
    163.00
  • 02/20/2026
    SJFIS
    STATE JUDICIAL REVOLVING FUND - INTERPRETER AND TRANSLATOR SERVICES
    0.45
  • 02/20/2026
    CCADMIN10
    COURT CLERK ADMIN FEE FOR $10 COLLECTION
    1.00
  • 02/20/2026
    SSFCHSCPC
    SHERIFF'S SERVICE FEE FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY PER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
    10.00
  • 02/20/2026
    DCADMIN155
    DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ON $1.55 COLLECTIONS
    0.23
  • 02/20/2026
    OCASA
    OKLAHOMA COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES
    10.00
  • 02/20/2026
    TEXT
    OCIS HAS AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED JUDGE MAI, NATALIE TO THIS CASE.
  • 02/20/2026
    OCJC
    OKLAHOMA COUNCIL ON JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS REVOLVING FUND
    1.55
  • 02/20/2026
    PFE7
    LAW LIBRARY FEE
    6.00
  • 02/20/2026
    CCRMPF
    COURT CLERK'S RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION FEE
    10.00
  • 02/20/2026
  • 02/20/2026
    DMFE
    DISPUTE MEDIATION FEE
    7.00
  • 02/20/2026
    ACCOUNT
  • 02/20/2026
    SMF
    SUMMONS FEE (CLERKS FEE)X2
    20.00

Petition Text

1,491 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA OKC-NHP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) BOSQUET, LLC, an Oklahoma limited Liability company; ALLISON HOLMES, an individual, ) Defendants. PETITION Plaintiff, OKC-NHP, LLC ("Landlord"), for its causes of action against Defendants, BOSQUET, LLC ("Tenant") and Allison Holmes ("Guarantor") (Tenant and Guarantor are collectively referred to as "Defendants"), alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Landlord is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and is qualified to do business in the State of Oklahoma. 2. Tenant is an Oklahoma limited liability company, which did business at 6465 Avondale Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73116 (the "Premises"), and may be served with process through its registered agent, Guarantor, located at 2421 NW 55th Place, Oklahoma City, OK 73112. 3. Guarantor is an individual who executed a Guaranty for the Premises leased by Tenant. Guarantor resides in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Tenant executed a lease with Landlord to do business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 5. The debt which is the subject matter of this suit concerns property located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action, and venue is appropriate. FACTS 7. On March 31, 2021, Tenant executed a written Lease (the “Lease”) with Landlord, for approximately 1,700 square feet of ground floor area at the Premises in Nichols Hills Plaza. The Lease was set to commence upon the earlier of (i) the date Tenant opens for business, or (ii) the ninetieth (90th) day after Landlord notified Tenant the Premises was ready for Tenant to start performing work. The Lease was set to expire sixty months after it commenced. 8. As part of Tenant’s execution of the Lease, Guarantor executed a Guaranty whereby Guarantor unconditionally guaranteed to Landlord the performance of all obligations, covenants, and agreements of Tenant. 9. On July 27, 2021, Tenant executed the First Lease Amendment (collectively, with the Lease, the “Amended Lease”) that modified the Lease, in relevant part, by changing the commencement date to the earlier of (i) the date Tenant opens for business, or (ii) October 1, 2021 (the “Commencement Date”). Tenant opened for business on September 30, 2021. The Amended Lease is set to expire sixty (60) months after the Commencement Date on September 30, 2026. The First Lease Amendment provided that “all of the other terms, covenants and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.” In the First Lease Amendment, Guarantor acknowledged and reaffirmed her continued obligations under the Guaranty “to guaranty the full performance of all of Tenant’s obligations under the Lease.” 10. Landlord is now, and was at all times of which it complains, the owner of the Premises. See Affidavit of Andie Ortiz, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 11. The terms of the Amended Lease required Tenant to pay Minimum Rent and additional rent amounts for the Premises to Landlord, without demand, in equal monthly installments, on or before the first day of each month. The Amended Lease provides that any failure by Tenant to pay Minimum Rent or any other amounts due under the Amended Lease is a default under and breach of the Amended Lease. 12. The Amended Lease also requires Tenant to continuously operate the Premises for the entire term of the Lease and provides that it is a breach of and default under the Amended Lease for Tenant to abandon, vacate, or not do business in the Premises. 13. In the event of a breach or default by Tenant, the Amended Lease dictates that Landlord may recover from Tenant all damages incurred by Landlord due Tenant’s breach or default, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and costs and the costs of recovering the Premises. 14. The Amended Lease further provides that for every day Tenant does not operate its business on the Premises “the Minimum Rent, prorated on a daily basis, shall be increased by fifty percent (50%), such increased sum representing the damages which the parties agree Landlord will suffer by Tenant’s noncompliance.” 15. Tenant has failed to pay rent and other charges as they came due on repeated occasions, beginning in August of 2025 and continuing until the present. Tenant has not paid any rent for seven (7) months. 16. On or around November 15, 2025, Tenant discontinued operations at the Premises and has not operated its business at the Premises since then. Shortly thereafter, Tenant abandoned and surrendered the Premises to Landlord by removing Tenant’s inventory and equipment and disconnecting their phone and email. However, Tenant did not return the keys to the Premises to Landlord as required by section VIII(C) of the Amended Lease. 17. To date, Defendants have failed to remit a payment to Landlord. Defendants now owe Landlord $51,300.79 for past-due rent and other payments required by the Amended Lease. CAUSES OF ACTION I. Breach of Lease 18. Landlord incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 19. Landlord and Tenant executed the Lease on March 31, 2021. 20. On July 27, 2021, Defendants and Landlord executed the First Lease Amendment which, inter alia, extended the Commencement Date until September 30, 2021. 21. Landlord has fully complied with its obligations under the Amended Lease. 22. Because of Tenant’s failure to pay rent, abandonment of the Premises and failure to fulfill other obligations, Tenant is in default and breach of the Amended Lease. 23. As a result of Tenant’s default and breach of the Amended Lease, Landlord is entitled to payment of at least $51,300.79, and any additional late fees, interest, attorney fees, and costs incurred by Landlord to collect this amount. II. Breach of Guaranty of Lease 24. Landlord incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 25. As part of the Amended Lease, Guarantor executed a Guaranty wherein she “absolutely and unconditionally guarantee[d]” Tenant’s “full and prompt payment when due, of all rents, charges and additional sums” due under the Amended Lease, “together with the performance of all covenants and agreements of the Tenant” in the Amended Lease, “together with the full and prompt payment of all damages that may arise or be incurred by Landlord in consequence of Tenant's failure to perform such covenants and agreements." 26. In the Guaranty, "Guarantor further agree[d] to pay all expenses, including attorneys' fees and legal expenses, paid or incurred by Landlord in endeavoring to collect or enforce the [above-mentioned] Liabilities . . . and in enforcing this guaranty." 27. As a result of Tenant's defaults and breaches of the Lease, Guarantor is personally obligated to pay Landlord at least $51,300.79 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff OKC-NHP, LLC prays that it be granted judgement against Defendants requiring that: a. Defendants pay as damages all losses sustained by Plaintiff as a result of Tenant's wrongful conduct described herein, in an amount not less than $51,300.79, plus any additional late fees and interest incurred; b. Defendants pay Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs; c. Defendants pay pre- and post-judgment interest on all sums awarded by the Court; and d. For such other and further relief as to which Plaintiff may show itself to be justly entitled. Respectfully Submitted, John M. "Jake" Krattiger, OBA No. 30617 Cole T. McDaniel, OBA No. 35677 GABLEGOTWALS 499 W. Sheridan Avenue, Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-5500 Facsimile: (405) 235-2875 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff OKC-NHP, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA OKC-NHP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. BOSQUET, LLC, an Oklahoma limited Liability company; ALLISON HOLMES, an individual, Defendants. Case No. _______________________ AFFIDAVIT OF ANDIE ORTIZ STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) ss. Andie Ortiz, being of lawful age, hereby declares under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true and correct: 1. OKC-NHP, LLC ("Landlord") is the owner of the real property located at 6421 Avondale Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73116 which is the subject of this case. 2. Defendant BOSQUET, LLC ("Tenant") is an Oklahoma limited liability company, which is doing business at 6421 Avondale Drive, Suite 6465, Oklahoma City, OK 73116 (the "Premises"), and may be served with process through its registered agent, Allison Holmes, located at 2421 NW 55th Place, Oklahoma City, OK 73112. 3. Defendant Allison Holmes ("Guarantor") is an individual who executed a Guaranty for the Premises leased by Tenant. 4. Tenant entered into a lease with Landlord whereby Tenant agreed to pay Landlord rent without demand, in equal monthly installments, on or before the first day of each month (the "Lease"). 5. On July 27, 2021, Tenant executed the First Lease Amendment (collectively, with the Lease, the "Amended Lease") that modified the Lease, in relevant part, by changing the commencement date and by extension the term of the Lease. The Amended Lease will expire sixty (60) months after the commencement date on September 30, 2026. 6. As part of the Amended Lease, Guarantor guaranteed the performance of all Tenant's obligations under the Amended Lease. 7. Tenant is in default for the failure to pay rent, to continuously operate its business at the Premises, and to fulfill other obligations under the Amended Lease. Defendants are now indebted to Landlord for at least $51,300.79. FURTHER affiant sayeth not. [Signature] Andie Ortiz SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th day of February 2026. [Signature] Notary Public My Commission Expires: 12/22/29 Commission No: 78014497
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.