MEGAN NIENHUIS JOHNSON v. MATTHEW ERIC JOHNSON

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

5) 6 MEGAN NIENHUIS JOHNSON,) Case Number: FDI-26-803108) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 11, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 MATTHEW ERIC JOHNSON,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Megan Nienhuis Johnson (Wife) and Respondent Matthew Eric 18 Johnson (Husband).

There are no minor children subject to this proceeding. 19 2) On 6/4/26, Wife filed a Petition for Dissolution. Wife states that the parties married on 10/20/12 20 and separated on 7/25/25 for a marriage of 12 years 9 months. 21 3) On 6/23/26, Wife filed a Request for Order seeking temporary spousal support of $1,500 per 22 month. Wife states she believes that Husband’s gross monthly income is about $5,617.50 and that 23 he nets a surplus of $4,256.08 per month. 24 4) On 6/23/26, Wife filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 25 5) On 6/23/26, Wife filed a Declaration Statement of Support Calculations. 26 6) On 7/13/26, Wife filed a Declaration in Support of Request for Order for Spousal Support (Index 27 of Evidence). 28 7) On 7/22/26, Husband filed a Response and Request for Dissolution.

Respondent states the date of 29 marriage is 10/20/12 and agrees that the parties were married for 12 years 9 months.

1 8) On 8/5/26, Husband filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Wife’s Request for Order. 2 Husband states that he is unable to pay temporary spousal support because he was laid off from 3 his job on 7/1/26 and has not yet found new employment. 4 9) On 8/5/26, Husband filed an Income and Expense Declaration indicating he receives $1,950 in 5 unemployment compensation. 6 B. Findings and Order 7 1) “Awards of temporary spousal support rest within the broad discretion of the trial court and may 8 be ordered in any amount subject only to the moving party’s needs and the other party’s ability to 9 pay.”

See Marriage of Murray (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th581. 10 2) Here, Wife submitted documentary evidence of her need and Husband’s past ability to pay; 11 however, Husband states, under penalty of perjury, that he was laid off from his job as of 7/1/26 12 and incurred significant legal debt due to a DUI charge. Wife did not present any conflicting 13 evidence of Husband’s current ability to pay. 14 3) As such, the Court finds good cause to CONTINUE Wife’s request for temporary spousal 15 support to 10/8/26 at 9 AM in Dept. 403. 16 4) At least 10 days in advance of the hearing, Husband shall provide documentary evidence that he 17 was laid off from his job as of 7/1/26. 18 5) The Court reserves jurisdiction over temporary spousal support retroactive to 6/23/26 (i.e., the 19 filing date of Wife’s Request to Order). 20 6) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 21