DAVID KWOK KEUNG LEUNG v. GUIHUAN YANG

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

5) 6 DAVID KWOK KEUNG LEUNG,) Case Number: FDI-24-799479) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 16, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 GUIHUAN YANG,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES 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) Petitioner David Leung (Husband) and Respondent Guihuan Yang (Wife) married on 11/19/2015. 18 The parties agree their date of separation is 3/13/2024, for a marriage of 8 years and 4 months. 19 The parties have no minor children.

Husband is represented by attorney Wendy Lun. Wife is 20 represented by API Legal Outreach. 21 2) On for hearing is Wife’s Request for Order filed 2/4/2026 asking this Court to award Wife 22 sanctions in the amount of $4,197.50. Wife states that she is deserving of sanctions because 23 Husband’s attorney unilaterally scheduled Wife’s deposition without first coordinating a time and 24 place for the deposition and then at 9:30 AM on the date of the deposition, Husband’s attorney 25 canceled the deposition when Wife and her attorney were just 20 minutes away from the place of 26 deposition after driving for over 1.5 hours in inclement weather.

Wife requests sanctions in the 27 amount of $4,197.50 for Wife’s attorney to drive 6 hours to and from the deposition (6 x $350 = 28 $2,100), for Wife’s attorney to drive 70 miles at 72.5 cents per mile ($50.75), for 8 hours of 29 Wife’s lost wages (8 hours x $30.75 = $246), for Wife to drive 70 miles at 72.5 cents per mile

1 ($50.75), as well as $1,750 for Wife’s attorney to prepare the instant motion. Wife also mentions 2 that Husband’s attorney purposefully filed and scheduled an ex parte motion on 1/2/2026 during a 3 period of Mother’s attorney’s noticed unavailability but does not appear to be requesting 4 sanctions specifically tied to this allegation. 5 3) On 3/18/2026, Husband filed a Responsive Declaration asking the Court to deny Wife’s Request 6 for Order and grant Husband $5,000 in attorney’s fees under Family Code section 271 for having 7 to respond to Wife’s motion.

Husband’s attorney explains that she was very ill the day before the 8 scheduled deposition and she did not want to cancel the deposition, “but the Court reporter did 9 not want to get ill and cancelled it.” Husband attached as Exhibit 2 an email dated 12/22/2025 10 sent at 8:48 AM by “Bell & Myers Calendar” which states, “Hi Wendy, I spoke with our reporter. 11 She says she would rather lose money than run the risk of you getting her, and possibly everyone 12 else, sick. We are cancelling this deposition for today.”

Husband’s attorney also notes that the 13 Court already denied both parties’ requests for sanctions in connection with the 1/2/2026 ex parte 14 Request for Order. 15 4) On 4/9/2026, Wife filed a Reply Declaration. Wife clarifies that her request for sanctions is not 16 based on Husband’s 1/2/2026 ex parte Request for Order and is instead “based on Husband’s 17 improper cancellation of the December 22, 2025 deposition.” 18 5) Per the Proof of Service filed 4/9/2026, Wife’s Reply Declaration was mailed to Husband’s 19 attorney on 4/9/2026. 20 6) On 4/14/2026, Husband filed a Motion to Strike Respondent’s Reply.

Husband’s attorney states, 21 “Since San Francisco County mandates e-files, Respondent is required to serve Petitioner 22 electronically, pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.251 and C.C.P. Section 1010.6. It is highly 23 prejudicial to Petitioner that he was deprived the opportunity to review and respond to the Reply. 24 Therefore, Petitioner respectfully requests the Court to strike Respondent’s Reply.” 25 B. Findings and Order 26 1) Wife’s request for fees and costs incurred to drive to and from the deposition site, for mileage, for 27 Wife’s lost wages, and for Wife’s attorney to prepare and file the 2/4/2026 Request for Order is 28 denied.

The Court finds that it was the reporter’s cancellation that rendered Husband’s attorney 29 unable to proceed with the deposition.

1 2) Husband’s request for attorney’s fees sanctions is also denied. 2 3) California Rules of Court rule 2.251(c)(3) states: “a party or other person that is required to file 3 documents electronically in an action must also serve documents and accept service of documents 4 electronically from all other parties or persons, unless (A) the Court orders otherwise, or (B) The 5 action includes parties or persons that are not required to file or serve documents electronically, 6 including self-represented parties or other self-represented persons; those parties or other persons 7 are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic 8 service.”

The Court finds that Wife’s attorney was required to electronically serve her Reply 9 Declaration because that document was required to be electronically filed under the Court’s Local 10 Rules. The Court will not strike Wife’s Reply Declaration. However, Wife’s attorney is 11 admonished to comply with the California Rules of Court going forward. 12 4) Wife’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 13 5) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 14 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 15 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 16 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 17 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 18 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 19 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 20

24

28

29