KEITH RICHARDSON v. LACHON RICHARDSON

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

5) 6 KEITH RICHARDSON,) Case Number: FDI-20-794120) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 14, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 LACHON RICHARDSON,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION 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 Keith Richardson and Respondent Lachon Richardson. 18 2) On 2/28/25, the Court entered judgment, which includes a provision for Petitioner to pay 19 Respondent $160,000 total in $3,500 monthly payments due on the 1st of each month until the 20 balance is paid in full.

This provision is contingent on Petitioner’s accounting documents showing 21 that business earnings from Keith’s Chicken and Waffles were no greater than 5% above 22 $100,000 annually for 2023, and Petitioner was to provide the accounting paperwork within 30 23 days. 24 3) On 12/17/25, Petitioner filed a Request for Order seeking to set aside judgment under Code of 25 Civil Procedure section 473 and Family Code section 2122. Petitioner asserts that he lacks the 26 ability to comply with the payment terms of the judgment because his income is generated from a 27 small business with limited liquid funds.

Petitioner further asserts the Court relied on false 28 information when entering judgment because Respondent represented that she has a $3,000 29

1 monthly rent obligation despite living with her parents rent free. Petitioner states the motion is 2 based on, “actual fraud, perjury, failure to disclose material facts, and attorney abandonment.” 3 4) On 2/23/26, Respondent filed a Motion to Strike Petitioner’s Request for Order pursuant to Code 4 of Civil Procedure section 436. Respondent’s request is based on a lack of supporting documents 5 and sufficient facts and lack of proper service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 and 6 California Rules of Court, rule 5.92(b)(1).

Attached to Respondent’s Motion to Strike are the 7 documents with which Respondent was served, and Petitioner’s supportive declaration (which 8 was filed with the Court) is not attached. 9 5) At the prior 3/3/26 hearing, the Court made a finding of good cause to continue the hearing to 10 7/7/26 at 9 AM in Dept. 403 for proper service to be effectuated and ordered as follows: 11 a. The Court declines to exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 436; 12 Respondent’s Motion to Strike is therefore DENIED. 13 b.