ANDREW KOKLIONG GAN v. HANNAH YUIN YEE LEONG

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

5) 6 ANDREW KOKLIONG GAN,) Case Number: FDI-16-785159) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 11, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 HANNAH YUIN YEE LEONG,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: MARTIN TRIANO) 11) 12 OTHER REVIEW HEARING 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 in this matter are Petitioner Andrew Gan (Father) and Respondent Hannah Leong 18 (Mother).

The parties married on 10/10/1996. The parties disagree regarding their date of 19 separation, but agree their marriage is at least 18 years in duration. The parties have three adult 20 children, Rachel (DOB: 2/21/2001, age 24), Abigail (DOB: 7/25/2004, age 21), and Joshua 21 (DOB: 3/12/2008, age 18). Father is represented by attorney James Ward. Mother is represented 22 by attorney David Korsunsky. 23 2) Although this case was opened in 2016, there has been no Judgment entered in this matter to date. 24 3) On 11/1/2023, a Stipulation and Order for Temporary Child and Spousal Support was filed.

This 25 order requires Father to pay Mother guideline child support of $2,120 per month and temporary 26 spousal support of $3,119 per month (which is based on Father’s earning $17,500 in base salary 27 per month and Mother’s earning $4,880 in base salary per month). The order also includes a two- 28 way Smith / Ostler order. 29

1 4) On 11/26/2025, Father filed a Request for Order asking the Court to modify the child and spousal 2 support orders set forth in the 11/1/2023 Stipulation and Order. Both parties filed pleadings 3 regarding Father’s 11/26/2025 Request for Order. 4 5) At the prior 2/19/2026 hearing (per the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 3/2/2026), the 5 Court made the following orders: 6 a. Both parties’ requests to modify child and temporary spousal support are denied, but this 7 issue will be revisited at a review hearing set for 6/11/2026. 8 b.

The Court ordered Mother to spend a minimum of 10 hours per week seeking work and 9 apply for 3 jobs per week. 10 c. The Court granted a Gavron warning against Mother. 11 d. The Court set a review hearing for 6/11/2026 to review Mother’s work search history, 12 determine whether to impute Mother with additional income, and determine whether to 13 modify child and temporary spousal support. 14 6) On 5/22/2026, Father filed a Declaration, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Income and 15 Expense Declaration, and Statement of Support Calculations.

Father states Mother has not used 16 her best efforts to become self-supporting. Father asks the Court to impute Mother an annual 17 salary of $146,000. Father asks the Court to modify child support retroactive to the date he filed 18 his Request for Order (i.e., 11/26/2025). Father asks the Court to issue a Richmond step-down 19 order terminating spousal support entirely by 2/19/2027. Father further requests $5,000 in Family 20 Code section 271 attorney’s fees sanctions. 21 7) On 6/1/2026, Mothe filed a Supplemental Declaration, Income and Expense Declaration, and 22 Statement of Support Calculation.

Mother states that she works full time at the San Francisco 23 Bible Church, where she earns $72,467 per year. Mother states in March 2026 she received a 24 bonus of $6,915.89, which brings her total income from San Francisco Bible Church to 25 approximately $80,000. Mother states that she also began an additional paid position at the 26 Slainte Volleyball Club (“SVC”) in February 2026, where she earns $35 per hour for 27 approximately 10 to 20 hours per week — roughly $17,500 to $35,000 per year.

This brings 28 Mother’s income to $97,500 to $115,000 per year, which Mother states is in the earning capacity 29 range identified by the vocational expert (i.e., $95,000 to $146,000).

1 8) On 6/2/2026, Father filed a Submission of Attorney Billing Statements in Support of His Request 2 for Family Code 271 Sanctions. 3 9) On 6/3/2026, Father filed Objections to Mother’s Supplemental Declaration, seeking to strike 4 various paragraphs and portions of the attached exhibits on the grounds of prior inconsistent 5 statements, lack of foundation, lack of personal medical expertise, hearsay, speculation, absence 6 of competent medical evidence, failure to produce supporting records, improper expert testimony, 7 mischaracterization of evidence, introduction of new matter not previously disclosed, 8 contradiction by documentary evidence, internal inconsistency, misleading statements, violation 9 of court orders, failure to timely disclose information, unfair surprise, prejudice, and discovery 10 abuse.

Father also asks the Court to make an adverse credibility finding against Mother. 11 10) On 6/4/2026, Mother filed a Motion to Strike Father’s Objections to Supplemental Declaration. 12 Mother states, “Respondent lacks the opportunity to provide a meaningful response to this 13 unauthorized pleading in a deliberate and timely manner prior to the hearing, and hence her due 14 process rights are directly implicated. Respondent therefore asks that Petitioner’s improperly 15 submitted “objection” be stricken under CCP §436(b), which gives the Court the power to “Strike 16 out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a 17 court rule, or an order of the court.” 18 B.

Findings and Order 19 1) At the prior 2/19/2026, the Court denied both parties’ requests to modify child and temporary 20 spousal support and set a review hearing on 6/11/2026 to revisit whether to modify child and 21 temporary spousal support. The Court did not reserve jurisdiction to modify child or temporary 22 spousal support retroactive to the date Father filed his Request for Order. Father’s request to 23 modify child and temporary spousal support retroactive to the date he filed his Request for Order 24 is denied. 25 2) The parties’ youngest child turned 18 in February 2026 and graduated from high school in May 26 2026.

Mother also secured a second position of paid employment in February 2026. These are 27 circumstances warranting a modification of child and temporary spousal support. 28

1 3) Effective 6/1/2026, child support is set at $0 and Father shall pay to Mother $2,660 per month in 2 temporary guideline spousal support in accordance with the XSpouse calculation attached to 3 Mother’s Statement of Guideline Calculation filed 6/1/2026. 4 4) In accordance with the Bonus Tables attached to Mother’s Statement of Guideline Calculation 5 filed 6/1/2026, the parties shall each pay bonus support on all income they receive in excess of 6 their base salary (as used in the guideline support calculation), of any kind whatsoever, on a 7 quarterly basis.

The parties shall exchange financial information within seven calendar days of 8 the close of a quarter, and payments shall be made within seven calendar days of the parties’ 9 exchange of information. 10 5) Father’s request to impute additional income to Mother (beyond the $8,051 per month used for 11 Mother in her guideline support calculation) is denied without prejudice to the Court’s ability to 12 impute additional income to Mother when it determines long-term spousal support. 13 6) Father’s request for a “Richmond step-down order” for spousal support is denied without 14 prejudice to the Court’s ability to consider this request when it determines long-term spousal 15 support. 16 7) Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Stipulation and Order for Temporary Child and Spousal Support filed 17 11/1/2023 shall remain in full force and effect as the Court shall remain in full force and effect. 18 8) Father’s request to strike various paragraphs of and portions of the exhibits attached to Mother’s 19 Supplemental Declaration filed 6/3/2026 is denied. 20 9) Father’s request for Family Code section 271 attorney’s fees sanctions is denied. 21 10) Father’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 22 11) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 23 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 24 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 25 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 26 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 27 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 28 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 29