DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-23-798696·sf·FamilyLaw·Family Law / Support
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

Jonathan King Mapel v. Ja-Chin Audrey Lee

Change of spousal or partner support; child support; attorney fees and costs; order imputing earning capacity

Hearing date
May 26, 2026
Department
403
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 21, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerJonathan King Mapel
RespondentJa-Chin Audrey Lee

Ruling

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 JONATHAN KING MAPEL,) Case Number: FDI-23-798696) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 26, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 JA-CHIN AUDREY LEE,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: MUJDAH RAHIM) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: CHANGE OF SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, CHILD SUPPORT, 13 ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, ORDER IMPUTING EARNING CAPACTIY TO RESPONDENT 14 PURSUANT TO FC 4058(B) 15

16 NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES RE: ASSIGNMENT OF TEMPORARY JUDGE 17 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.816) 18 This notice shall serve to inform the parties that a temporary judge (Judge Pro Tem) has been assigned to 19 hear your case on Tuesday, 5/26/26 in Dept. 403 at 11:00 AM. Court Commissioner Mujdah Rahim is 20 the Judge Pro Tem assigned, and she is a qualified member of the State Bar of California who satisfies the 21 requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 2.812. You have the right to have your matter heard 22 instead before a judge, commissioner, or referee of the court. 23

24 TENTATIVE RULING 25 On the Court’s own motion, this matter is continued to 7/21/26 at 9 AM in Dept. 403. If either party is 26 unavailable on 7/21/26, they must: (a) notify the Court and other party by 4:00 PM the Court day prior to 27 the hearing date; and (b) appear at hearing on 5/26/26 at 11:00 AM to select a new hearing date. 28 Otherwise, no appearances are required on 5/26/26. 29

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