Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the husband and wife who owned and managed the defendant corporation were alter egos of the corporation and liable for the corporation’s Labor Code violations in a suit brought by a former employee.  The evidence showed that the corporation had paid some of the couple’s personal debts and that the couple had used their personal funds to pay the employee’s salary at times.  The couple also owned all the corporation’s stock and managed its business.  The intermingling of assets and unauthorized use of corporate funds for personal expenses was sufficient proof that not disregarding the corporate entity would lead to an inequitable result, even though there was no proof that the corporation was undercapitalized or a mere shell.  Undercapitalization is only one factor to be considered in deciding alter ego status, and its absence does not preclude an alter ego determination.