Filed 11/14/22 Marriage of Jain CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN In re Marriage of MAYANK and B322564 PRIYANKA JAIN. (Santa Clara County MAYANK JAIN, Super. Ct. No. 18FL001727) Appellant, v. PRIYANKA JAIN, Respondent. APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. James L. Stoelker, Judge. Affirmed. Mayank Jain, in pro. per., for Appellant. Priyanka Jain, in pro. per., for Respondent. _______________________ After the family court denied Mayank Jain permission to appear telephonically and Mayank failed to attend the trial on reserved issues in his marital dissolution action with Priyanka Jain, the court entered judgment in favor of Priyanka.1 The court thereafter denied Mayank’s motion to set aside the judgment. On appeal Mayank contends denial of his application to appear telephonically violated California Rules of Court, rule 3.6702 and, alternatively, the court erred in declining to set aside the judgment based on mistake of fact, mistake of law or excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Dissolution Action and Default Judgment on Reserved Issues Mayank and Priyanka were married on January 22, 2014. They have one child, born in February 2018. Mayank petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage in May 2018. Priyanka obtained a domestic violence restraining order against Mayank in October 2018, which was renewed prior to trial and extended to October 7, 2020. On November 18, 2019 the family court terminated Mayank and Priyanka’s marital status and set trial on the remaining issues for March 3, 2020. The court expressly ordered Mayank “to be personally present for the SOC [settlement officer 1 We refer to Mayank Jain and Priyanka Jain by their first names for clarity. 2 References to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 2 conference], MSC [mandatory settlement conference] and the trial.”3 On February 19, 2020 Mayank, who had previously appeared at matters telephonically through CourtCall, attempted to arrange a telephonic appearance for the upcoming hearings by emailing the court’s clerk, who responded, also by email, that this contact constituted an impermissible ex parte communication and that Mayank needed to file an ex parte request or declaration. On the same day the family court granted a motion by Priyanka to compel documents, noting in the minute order that Mayank was making “efforts to appear by telephone,” and that “this was not a new request.” Mayank never filed a formal application, either with statutory notice or ex parte, to appear by telephone. On February 23, 2020 Mayank emailed the court clerk notices of his intent to appear by telephone at the upcoming …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals