Huaichun Lei v. Najian Huang

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

5) 6 HUAICHUN LEI,) Case Number: FDI-24-799990) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: March 26, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 1:30 PM) 9 NAJIAN HUANG,) Department: 414) 10 Respondent) Presiding: MUJDAH RAHIM) 11) 12 TENTATIVE RULING 13 The parties are ordered to appear. The parties may appear in person in Department 414 or 14 remotely by Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice 15 and Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 16 A.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 17 1. The parties are Petitioner Huaichun Lei and Respondent Najian Huang. The parties were married 18 on March 13, 2015. They share two minor children. 19 2. On 7/11/24, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution listing the date of separation as 4/1/19. 20 3. On 8/16/24, Respondent filed a Response and Request for Dissolution listing the date of 21 separation as 7/19/24. Respondent checked item 8a. on her Response, indicating a request for 22 spousal support orders. 23 4. On 11/14/24, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking child custody, visitation, and child 24 support, but not spousal support.

The child support request was later transferred to Department 25 416 (now Department 414). 26 5. On 5/22/25, the Court made a series of orders regarding businesses owned by Petitioner, Blue 27 Mountain Payments (BMP) and N&H Investment LLC. The Court then stayed those orders on 28 11/26/25 and recommended that Respondent consider retaining a joint 730 expert for business 29 characterization and valuation.

1 6. On 7/1/25, the Court ordered Petitioner to pay Respondent guideline child support in the amount 2 of $4,405.00 retroactive to 12/01/24 and payable on the first day of the based on Petitioner having 3 a 25% timeshare with the children. 4 7. On 2/24/26, Respondent filed an Income and Expense Declaration and a Request for Order. 5 Respondent seeks $6,000 per month in spousal support, or alternatively, guideline support 6 retroactive to the earliest possible date. Respondent contends that Petitioner’s income is at least 7 three times the amount of her income and is more than what is reflected on his Income and 8 Expense Declarations. 9 8.

Respondent additionally seeks 1) a determination as to the date of separation; 2) orders regarding 10 disputed transactions, payroll and personal expenses; 3) “procedural protections” regarding a 11 section 730 expert report; and 4) $10,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. Finally, Respondent 12 contends that Petitioner owes $25,251.32 in child support arrears but does not explicitly request 13 any orders regarding the alleged arrears. 14 9. On 3/13/26, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration and a Response opposing 15 Respondent’s requested orders.