DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
Hong vs. McDonald’s Corporation·orange·Civil·Other
Hearing 3 months agoOFF CALENDAR

Hong vs. McDonald’s Corporation

OFF CALENDAR

Hearing date
May 27, 2026
Department
N16
Prevailing
N/A

Ruling

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT N16

HON. Donald F. Gaffney

Counsel and Parties Please Note: Law and Motion in Department N16 is heard on Wednesdays at 9:00 a.m.

Date: May 27, 2026

Tentative Rulings will be posted on the Internet on the day before the hearing by 5:00 p.m. [or earlier] whenever possible. To submit on the tentative ruling, please contact the clerk at (657) 622-5616, after contacting opposing party/counsel. Prevailing party shall give notice of the Ruling and prepare the Order/Judgment for the Court’s signature if required.

NOTE: After posting of tentative rulings, the Court will not take the motion off calendar and will grant a continuance of the motion only upon stipulation of all affected parties.

If no appearances are made on the calendared motion date, then oral argument will be deemed to have been waived and the tentative ruling will become the Court’s final ruling.

# Case Name Tentative 1 Hong vs. OFF CALENDAR McDonald's Corporation 2 Marimed Inc. TENTATIVE RULING: vs. TUV Investments For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Jennifer Whalen’s LLC demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

Defendant Jennifer Whalen (“Whalen”) demurs to Plaintiff Marimed, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the ground that it fails to allege facts sufficient to state claims against her in her individual capacity. Specifically, Whalen contends that Plaintiff’s claims are based entirely on an alter ego theory, but the FAC alleges only conclusory assertions of unity of interest and inequitable result without sufficient supporting factual allegations.

Statement of Law

“Ordinarily, a corporation is regarded as a legal entity, separate and distinct from its stockholders, officers and directors, with separate and distinct liabilities and obligations. [Citations.]” (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538.) “[T]he

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share