Raj Kunar Gurung v. Lakshmi Gurung

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

5) 6 RAJ KUNAR GURUNG,) Case Number: FDI-23-798275) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 26, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 LAKSHMI GURUNG,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER SPECIFIC RELIEF: FRINDING THAT JX IS PROPER IN CA AND COURT 13 PERMITS THE FILING AND ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT 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 in this matter are Raj Gurung (Husband) and Lakshmi Gurung (Wife). Husband states 19 the parties married on 5/4/1997 and separated on 3/4/2018, for a marriage of 20 years and 10 20 months. Wife has filed no pleadings in this matter to date. 21 2) Case No. FDI-20-793986 22 a. On 10/9/2020, in related Case No. FDI-20-793986, Husband filed a Petition for 23 Dissolution. 24 b. On 11/12/2020, Wife filed a Motion to Quash the proceedings on the grounds that there 25 was a concurrently pending divorce action in Nepal. 26 c.

Husband did not file a Responsive Declaration to Wife’s request to quash the 27 proceedings. 28 d. On 2/25/2021, following a hearing, Judge Evangelista granted Wife’s motion to quash the 29 proceedings and dismissed the proceedings.

1 3) Case No. FDI-23-798275 2 a. On 6/30/2023, Husband filed a new Petition for Dissolution. 3 b. Per the Proof of Service of Summons filed 7/10/2023, the Petition and Summons were 4 personally served on Wife on 7/7/2023. 5 c. On 10/31/2025, after Wife failed to file a Response to the Petition, Wife’s default was 6 entered. 7 d. On 8/25/2025, Husband submitted a proposed True Default Judgment for the Court’s 8 review. 9 e. On 1/15/2026, the Court rejected Husband’s proposed True Default Judgment, stating, “If 10 you wish for this Court to enter your proposed dissolution Judgment, you must file and 11 serve a Request for Order and show good cause [why] this Court has jurisdiction to enter 12 this Judgment despite the finding made in Case No.

FDI-20-793986 that Nepal has 13 jurisdiction.” 14 f. On 4/1/2026, Husband filed a Request for Order asking the Court to make a finding that 15 California has jurisdiction to make orders in the parties’ divorce case and to permit the 16 filing and entry of Judgment in this matter. Husband states that the Nepalese case was 17 dismissed on 11/4/2020 due to lack of prosecution. Husband attached to his Request for 18 Order what he deems a “true and correct copy of the Nepalese Dismissals Verdict with 19 English translation, issued November 4, 2020.”

Husband also notes that both parties have 20 lived in California since 2014 and continue to live in California today. 21 g. Per the Proof of Service filed 4/6/2026, Husband’s Request for Order was mailed to Wife 22 on 4/1/2026. 23 h. Wife did not file a Responsive Declaration. 24 B. Findings and Order 25 1) Based on Husband’s representation that the prior Nepalese dissolution case has been dismissed, 26 the Court finds that Superior Court of California has jurisdiction to make orders in the parties’ 27 dissolution matter. 28 2) Husband may resubmit his proposed Judgment packet for the Court’s review. 29 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing.