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: May 7, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 NAJIAN HUANG,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, 13 DATE OF SEPARATION; DISPUTE TRANSACTIONS; PROCEDURAL POTECTION 730 REP 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A.

Procedural History 18 1. The parties are Petitioner Huaichun Lei and Respondent Najian Huang. The parties were married 19 on March 13, 2015. They share two minor children. 20 2. On 7/11/24, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution listing the date of separation as 4/1/19. 21 3. On 8/16/24, Respondent filed a Response and Request for Dissolution listing the date of 22 separation as 7/19/24. Respondent checked item 8a. on her Response, indicating a request for 23 spousal support orders. 24 4. On 11/14/24, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking child custody, visitation, and child 25 support, but not spousal support.

The child support request was later transferred to Department 26 416 (now Department 414). 27 5. On 5/22/25, the Court made a series of orders regarding businesses owned by Petitioner, Blue 28 Mountain Payments (BMP) and N&H Investment LLC. The Court then stayed those orders on 29

1 11/26/25 and recommended that Respondent consider retaining a joint 730 expert for business 2 characterization and valuation. 3 6. On 7/1/25, the Court ordered Petitioner to pay Respondent guideline child support in the amount 4 of $4,405.00 retroactive to 12/01/24 and payable on the first day of the based on Petitioner having 5 a 25% timeshare with the children. 6 7. On 2/24/26, Respondent filed Request for Order in which she seeks spousal support, attorney fees 7 and other miscellaneous relief.

In particular, she seeks 1) a determination as to the date of 8 separation; 2) orders regarding disputed transactions, payroll and personal expenses; 3) 9 “procedural protections” regarding a section 730 expert report; and 4) $10,000 in attorney’s fees 10 and costs. Finally, Respondent contends that Petitioner owes $25,251.32 in child support arrears 11 but does not explicitly request any orders regarding the alleged arrears. 12 8. On 02/24/26, Respondent filed an Income and Expense Declaration in which she states the 13 following: 14 a.

Income: $10,000.00 per month. 15 b. Tax Filing Status: Married, filing separately. 16 c. 2 minor children (75% timeshare to Mother) 17 d. Health Insurance Premiums: $100.00/month 18 e. Property Tax: $1000.00/month (no mortgage payment is listed, nor is there any entry for 19 interest.) 20 f. Total Expenses: $9600.00 21 g. Attorney Fees Paid: Section was left blank. 22 h. Daycare: $1000.00/month 23 9. On 3/13/26, Petitioner filed Responsive Declaration opposing Respondent’s requested orders. 24 Petitioner asserts that Respondent has substantial monthly income and that his own ability to pay 25 spousal support is limited, as the current child support order is based on inflated income, and he is 26 paying $1,100 in arrears in addition to $4,400 in ongoing support.

Petitioner contends there is no 27 income disparity warranting attorney’s fees and costs. He requests the Court reserve jurisdiction 28 over the date of separation, deny Respondent’s remaining requests as vague and unsupported, and 29 award $5,000 in sanctions under Family Code section 271.

1 10. On 03/13/26, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration in which he states the 2 following: 3 a. Income: 4 i. Wages: $5,500.00 per month. 5 ii. IHHS: $2580.81 6 iii. Rental Income: $385.52 7 iv. Self-Employed: $274.30 (However, the Court thoroughly reviewed his P/L for 8 Blue Mountain Payments for 2025 show his profits less expenses totaled 9 $355,128.12 for the 12 month period.) Therefore, it appears that his true monthly 10 gris $29,594.01. 11 v. N&H Investment LLC: $4,626.19 per month. 12 b.

Tax Filing Status: Married, filing separately. 13 c. 2 minor children (75% timeshare to Mother) 14 d. Health Insurance Premiums: $100.00/month 15 e. Property Tax: $1500.00/month (no mortgage payment is listed, nor is there any entry for 16 interest.) 17 f. Total Expenses: $8,775.00 18 g. Attorney Fees Paid: $71,312.50 19 h. Daycare: $1000.00/month 20 11. On 3/16/26, Respondent filed a declaration with an attachment purportedly demonstrating that 21 Petitioner’s claims of limited income are inaccurate and misleading.

The declaration attaches 22 numerous financial documents. 23 12. On 3/19/26, Petitioner filed an objection to Respondent’s 3/16 declaration on the basis that it 24 introduces new evidence on reply. Petitioner contends that Respondent’s analysis of his income is 25 flawed and reiterates his request for section 271 sanctions against Respondent on the basis that 26 she has filed multiple requests for orders as a procedural tactic designed to delay proceedings and 27 increase Petitioner’s attorney fees. 28

1 13. On 3/23/26, Respondent filed a declaration attaching further financial information meant to 2 demonstrate Petitioner’s purported ability to pay temporary spousal support and need based 3 attorney’s fees. 4 B. Findings and Order 5 1. Respondent’s request for guideline spousal support is GRANTED. 6 2. In accordance with the XSpouse report attached hereto and incorporated herein, spousal support 7 shall be payable by Petitioner to Respondent in the amount of $2,840.00 per month on the 1st day 8 of each month, commencing March 1, 2026.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding payment 9 of arrears owed to Respondent based on this order. 10 3. Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED. There is no showing of disparity in access 11 to funds and given the amount of support ordered, the Court finds Petitioner does not have the 12 ability to pay any of Respondent’s attorney fees. 13 4. As to the additional relief requested by Respondent, the Court finds good cause to order as 14 follows: 15 a. Determination as to the date of separation is RESERVED for trial; this is an issue that is 16 better suited for adjudication at the time of trial. 17 b.

Orders regarding disputed transactions, payroll, and personal expenses is RESERVED for 18 trial; this is also an issue that is better suited for adjudication at the time of trial. 19 c. Order re: “procedural protections” regarding a section 730 expert report is DENIED as 20 the Court unclear what the moving party is requesting. 21 d. Order that Petitioner owes $25,251.32 in child support arrears is DENIED without 22 prejudice as the moving party has sought enforcement through the San Francisco 23 Department of Child Support Services.

Respondent shall ask the Department of Child 24 Support Services to file a motion seeking a determination of arrears on her behalf. 25 5. Counsel for Petitioner shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 26 6. Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 27 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 28 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 29 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the

1 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within 2 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 3 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 4

8

12

16

20

24

28

Xspouse 2026-1-CA 25-05-07 XSpouse Lei v. Huang 799990

Fixed Shares Father Mother Monthly figures Cash Flow #of children 0 2 2026 Guideline Proposed % time with NCP 25.00% 0.00% Comb. net spendable 30915 30915 Filing status MFS-> <-MFS GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 0% # exemptions 1 • 3 Nets(adjusted) Father Wages+salary 0 12963 Father 21800 Payment cost/benefit -2840 -2840 Self-employed income 29594 0 Mother 9115 Net spendable income 18960 18960 Other taxable income 7592 0 Total 30915 Change from guideline 0 0 TANF+CS received 0 0 Support Other nontaxble income 0 0 Addons % of combined spendable 61% 61% 0 New spouse income 0 0 Guideln CS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 0 401(k) employee contrib 0 0 Total taxes 1538€ 1538€ S.Clara 55 2840 Adjustments to income 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 2840 SS paid prev marriage 0 0 # withholding allowances Ow Ow CS paid prev marriage 0 0 Settings changed Net wage paycheck 0 0 Health insurance 0 100 Mother Other medical expense 0 0 Payment cost/benefit 2840 2840 Property tax expense 0 0 Net spendable income 11956 11956 Ded interest expense 0 0 Proposed Change from guideline 0 0 Charitable contributions 0 0 Tactic 9 % of combined spendable 39% 39% Misc tax deductions 0 0 cs 0 Qual bus income ded 0 0 ss % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 2840 Required union dues 0 0 Total Total taxes 374S 374S 2840 Mandatory retirement 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Hardship deduction 0 • 0 * Saving o # withholding allowances 0 0 Other GDL deductions 0 O Releases O Net wage paycheck 8508 8508 Child care expenses 0 0

Father pays Guideline SS, Proposed SS

FC 4055 checking: ON Per Child Information Timeshare cce(F) cce(M) Addons Payor Basic CS Payor Pres CS Payor All children 25 - 75 0 0 0 Father 0 Father 0 Father

25 - 75 0 0 0 Father O Father 0 Father 25 - 75 0 0 0 Father O Father 0 Father

Superior Court of California County of San Francisco