DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV-0211072·shasta·Civil·Probate
Hearing 21 days agoGRANTED

IN RE ALLOY MARINE PRODUCTS, INC.

Petition for Order Reinstating to Active Status

Hearing date
Aug 3, 2026
Department
63
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerMichael Yochum
OtherAlloy Marine Products, Inc.

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0211072 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Order Reinstating to Active Status: Petitioner Michael Yochum moves for an Order directing and authorizing the Secretary of State of California to reinstate Alloy Marine Products, Inc. (Entity No. C1583967) to active status pursuant to Gov. Code § 12261. Petitioner has provided evidence that, due to a misunderstanding between Petitioner and Denise Yochum, Denise Yochum who is a director of the corporation, filed a Certificate of Dissolution that included the false statement that there had been a vote to dissolve the corporation and that all shareholders had voted to dissolve the corporation.

The Court finds that “[t]he factual representations by a shareholder, member, partner, or other person that are contained in the termination document are materially false” within the meaning of Gov. Code § 12261(a)(1). The Court therefore orders reinstatement of C1583967 to active status.

The Petition is GRANTED. Petitioner provided a proposed Order that does not contain all the necessary language. Petitioner shall provide a proposed Order that also includes the language contained in Gov. Code § 12261(b)(2). Additionally, paragraph 4 on page two of the proposed Order does not match the language in Gov. Code § 12261(b)(3) so this will need to be corrected.

AMARANT VS. MONARCH LEARNING CENTER CHARTER SCHOOL, ET AL.

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