OTHER REVIEW HEARING
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 AMIT RINDHE,) Case Number: FDI-23-797993) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 25, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ISHA SINGH,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 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) On 5/1/2023, Petitioner Amit Rindhe filed a Petition to dissolve his marriage to Respondent Isha 18 Singh.
Petitioner stated the parties married on 7/7/2022 and separated on 3/31/2023 for a 19 marriage of 8 months. The parties have no minor children. 20 2) On 6/5/2023, Ms. Singh filed a Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage wherein she 21 agreed to the facts alleged in the Petition. 22 3) On 7/25/2024, Mr. Rindhe filed an Amended Petition, now requesting an annulment on the basis 23 of bigamy. 24 4) On 8/9/2024, Ms. Singh filed a second Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage. 25 5) Following a long-cause hearing on 12/2/2024, Judge Costin found that Ms.
Singh had entered a 26 valid marriage in India to a third party that had not been dissolved at the time Ms. Singh entered 27 into a second marriage with Mr. Rindhe in California. Judge Costin found that Ms. Singh’s 28 marriage to Mr. Rindhe is null and void. Judge Costin also found Mr. Rindhe to be a putative 29 spouse. Putative spouse status was not granted to Ms. Singh.
1 6) On 2/13/2025, a Nullity Judgment was entered. 2 7) At a hearing on 9/19/2025 (Findings and Order After Hearing filed 10/2/2025), Judge Costin 3 ordered Ms. Singh to pay Mr. Rindhe $75,000 in attorney’s fees sanctions and $13,366.76 in 4 reimbursements for jewelry purchased during marriage and for quasi-marital property items 5 purchased during marriage, for a total of $88,367.67 owed by Ms. Singh to Mr. Rindhe, to be 6 paid to Mr. Rindhe’s attorney no later than 12/15/2025. Judge Costin stated in her order, “The 7 Court finds that $75,000 in sanctions does not impose an unreasonable financial burden on Mr. 8 Singh based on her Income and Expense Declaration file dated 7/1/25 wherein indicates she has 9 $400,000 in easily saleable funds.
At the hearing on 9/19/25, Ms. Singh testified this amount 10 remains accurate.” Judge Costin also noted in her order: “[F]ollowing a long-cause hearing, the 11 Court found that Mr. Rindhe believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, and that Ms. 12 Singh did not have such a good faith belief. At the long-cause hearing, and again through her 13 7/1/25 declaration filed herein, Ms. Singh repeatedly asserted under oath that she was mistaken 14 about the status of her marriage in India and that she did not sign documents that contain her 15 signature.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court did not find Ms. Singh’s testimony in that regard to be credible at trial and 16 does not find those assertions credible now. There was overwhelming evidence presented at trial 17 that Ms. Singh was still married to her husband in India as of 7/7/22 when she married Mr. 18 Rindhe. Ms. Singh’s insistence on litigating this matter through trial despite that overwhelming 19 evidence resulted in both parties incurring substantial attorney’s fees without good cause.” 20 8) Appeal of FOAH Filed 10/2/2025: On 12/19/2025, Ms.
Singh filed notice of appeal (Case No. 21 A175107) of the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 10/2/2025. That appeal remains pending. 22 9) DV Action: On 4/24/2023 in related Case No. FDV-23-816833, Ms. Singh filed a Request for 23 Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) for protection against Mr. Rindhe. A Temporary 24 Restraining Order (TRO) was granted for Ms. Singh’s protection on 4/24/2023. The hearing on 25 Ms. Singh’s Request for a DVRO has been continued many times. At the most recent hearing on 26 12/12/2024, Judge Costin noted there is a Criminal Protective Order for Ms.
Singh’s protection 27 against Mr. Rindhe that was issued on 11/7/2024 and is set to expire on 11/7/2027. The parties 28 agreed to continue the hearing date and to maintain the Domestic Violence TRO to 10/1/2027, a 29 date just prior to the expiration of the Criminal Protective Order.
1 10) Criminal Action: In August 2024, a jury convicted Mr. Rindhe of seven counts of rape by force, 2 two counts of making criminal threats, and one count of domestic abuse. Mr. Rindhe was 3 sentenced to 21 years in prison. 4 11) Appeal of Criminal Conviction: On 11/13/2024, Mr. Rindhe filed a notice of appeal (Case No. 5 A172053) to challenge the criminal conviction. That appeal remains pending. 6 12) Civil Action: On 8/5/2025, Ms. Singh filed a civil action against Mr. Rindhe wherein Ms. Singh 7 is seeking damages for domestic violence, assault, battery, intentional or reckless or negligent 8 infliction of severe emotional distress; sexual battery; gender violence; civil rights violations; 9 negligence; and conspiracy.
On 6/18/2026, the Court granted Mr. Rindhe’s motion to stay the 10 civil action pending resolution of the appeal of his criminal conviction as well as Ms. Singh’s 11 appeal of the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 10/2/2025. 12 13) On 12/3/2025, Ms. Singh filed an ex parte Request for Order and Memorandum of Points and 13 Authorities in this action asking the Court to stay enforcement of the 10/2/2025 order requiring 14 her to pay Mr. Rindhe $88,367.67 under Code of Civil Procedure section 918.5 “pending the 15 outcome of all litigation between Petitioner and me.”
Ms. Singh argues she will likely prevail in 16 her Request for DVRO and civil action against Mr. Rindhe. Ms. Singh believes she will be 17 entitled to damages of more than $100,000 in the civil case. Ms. Singh also believes she will be 18 entitled to at least $10,000 in attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under Family Code section 19 6344 in the DV action. Ms. Singh states she will be unlikely to collect from Mr. Rindhe if the stay 20 of execution is not granted. Ms. Singh states that Mr. Rindhe’s Income and Expense Declaration 21 shows that Mr.
Rindhe will not be able to satisfy any judgments in the two pending matters, 22 although Ms. Singh also disputes the veracity of Mr. Rindhe’s Income and Expense Declaration. 23 Ms. Singh also argues that because Mr. Rindhe is in custody and serving a 21-year sentence, there 24 is “no urgency or hardship to him if enforcement is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal and 25 the other matters.” 26 14) On 12/3/2025, Mr. Rindhe filed a Responsive Declaration and Memorandum of Points and 27 Authorities asking the Court to deny Ms.
Singh’s request for a stay of enforcement because Ms. 28 Singh’s arguments are “speculative” and “not based on immediate risk of harm.” 29
1 15) On 12/3/2025, this Court issued a Temporary Emergency Ex Parte Order and set the matter for 2 hearing on 12/30/2025. The Court’s order states: “Request for stay granted only pending hearing 3 on this matter... This is not an emergency... The parties are to brief (limited to 5 pages) the 4 applicability of CCP 918.5 and 918.5(b) factors, to be filed and served 10 days before the 5 hearing.” 6 16) On 12/15/2025, Mr. Rindhe argues that Code of Civil Procedure section 918.5 does not apply 7 because Ms.
Singh has not yet filed a Request for Order for attorney’s fees in any amount in the 8 DV action and Ms. Singh alleged in her civil complaint that she will be seeking leave of Court to 9 amend her complaint for damages / fees once the amount is ascertained. 10 17) On 1/30/2026, Mr. Rindhe filed a Brief Re Applicability of CCP 918.5 and 918.5(b). Mr. Rindhe 11 argues again that there are no pending actions that support Ms. Singh’s theory because there is no 12 pending request for fees in the DV action and Ms.
Singh has not yet amended her complaint to 13 seek monetary damages in the civil action. Mr. Rindhe also argues that the likelihood of Ms. 14 Singh prevailing in securing monetary awards against him is “speculative at best” and Ms. Singh 15 has not specified the amounts she is seeking in those actions. 16 18) On 2/3/2026, Ms. Singh filed a Request to Reschedule Hearing asking the Court to reschedule the 17 2/10/2026 hearing because Ms. Singh’s father died unexpectedly on 1/18/2026 in India and she 18 needed to remain in India to be with her family. 19 19) On 2/4/2026, the Court granted Ms.
Singh’s request, continued the 2/10/2026 hearing to 20 5/19/2026, and extended the stay of enforcement of the 10/2/2025 order to 5/19/2026. 21 20) On 5/4/2026, Mr. Rindhe filed a third Responsive Declaration asking the Court to deny Ms. 22 Singh’s request for a stay of enforcement of the 10/2/2025 order. 23 21) On 5/12/2026, Ms. Singh filed a Reply Declaration arguing that although she has not specified 24 amounts for prevailing party attorney’s fees in the DV action or for monetary awards in the civil 25 action, that does not mean that she does not have pending monetary claims in those actions.
Ms. 26 Singh argues that given the criminal convictions against Mr. Rindhe, it is reasonable for the Court 27 to find that there is a high likelihood of success for Ms. Singh to prevail in the DV and civil 28 actions. 29
1 22) On 5/14/2026, Ms. Singh filed a second Request to Reschedule Hearing asking the Court to 2 reschedule the 5/19/2026 hearing to a date after 8/31/2026 because her health is impeding her 3 ability to participate in the litigation. 4 23) On 5/18/2026, Ms. Singh filed a Declaration in Support of Objections and Sanctions. Ms. Singh 5 states that soon after she arrived in India in January 2006 she was attacked by Sumit Bharti (Ms. 6 Singh’s previous husband) and suffered physical and mental trauma.
Ms. Singh states Mr. Rindhe 7 informed Sumit Bharti that she would be in India due to her father’s death. Ms. Singh states, “My 8 stress is related to the trauma I have suffered from the conduct of Mr. Rindhe, including his 9 ongoing conduct of informing Mr. Bharti I was in India which resulted in me being attacked in 10 India when I traveled there for my father’s death.” 11 24) On 5/18/2026, Ms. Singh’s attorney Kathleen Morgan filed a Declaration. Ms. Singh’s attorney 12 states she will be filing a separate Request for Order seeking sanctions related to discovery 13 requests served by Mr.
Rindhe which seek information that could be used to locate Ms. Singh in 14 violation of the Temporary Restraining Order. Ms. Singh’s attorney asks that the Court permit her 15 sanction request to be heard concurrently with the current Request for Order seeking a stay. 16 25) At the prior 5/19/2026 hearing, the Court denied Ms. Singh’s request for a continuance. The 17 Court found that a stay of enforcement of the Court’s 10/2/2025 order requiring Ms. Singh to pay 18 Mr. Rindhe $88,367.67 is warranted under Code of Civil Procedure sections 916 because an 19 appeal of the underlying order is currently pending.
The Court also found that a stay is warranted 20 under Code of Civil Procedure section 918.5(b) because: (a) there is sufficient likelihood Ms. 21 Singh will prevail in the pending DV and civil actions to warrant a stay, (b) if Ms. Singh prevails 22 in the DV and civil actions her monetary recovery will likely be comparable to or exceed the 23 amount awarded in the Court’s 10/2/2025 order, and (c) Mr. Rindhe stated in his most recent 24 Income and Expense Declaration filed 4/29/2025 that he has no income and “minimal” assets. 25 The Court also found good cause to require Ms.
Singh to provide an undertaking under Code of 26 Civil Procedure sections 917.1 and 918. Following discussions with counsel that Ms. Singh could 27 post a bond which would cost her 10% of the total amount previously ordered, the Court ordered 28 Ms. Singh to post a bond to satisfy the undertaking. The Court also set a review hearing on 29 6/25/2026 on the limited issue of reviewing Ms. Singh’s compliance with the order and ordered
1 Ms. Singh to file and serve a declaration in advance of 6/25/2026 regarding her compliance with 2 this order. 3 26) On 6/17/2026, Ms. Singh filed a Declaration Regarding Compliance. Ms. Singh states she made 4 good faith efforts to contact bond companies. Ms. Singh attached to her declaration emails from 5 two bond companies who state they will not accept collateral for less than the full bond amount. 6 Ms. Singh states that since the 5/19/2026 hearing, the Court in the civil action granted a stay of 7 the civil action pending resolution of the appeal of Mr.
Rindhe’s criminal conviction and Ms. 8 Singh’s appeal of the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 10/2/2025. Ms. Singh states that if 9 she provides a cashier’s check now, the money will be locked up for years while the underlying 10 cases are pending. Ms. Singh also states that she does not want to lock up this money when she 11 has ongoing medical expenses and additional financial responsibilities to her mother since her 12 father’s passing. 13 B. Findings and Order 14 1) Ms. Singh’s attorney is admonished to prepare and submit to the Court the Findings and Order 15 After Hearing for the 5/19/2026 hearing date, as she was previously ordered to do. 16 2) The Court notes there are two future hearing dates set in this matter: 8/13/2026 (in Dept. 404) for 17 Ms.
Singh’s Request for Order filed 6/8/2026 seeking sanctions based on allegations that Mr. 18 Rindhe has misused the discovery process and 10/2/2026 (in Dept. 405A) for Mr. Rindhe’s 19 motion to compel further discovery responses filed 6/8/2026. On the Court’s own motion, 20 because Ms. Singh’s motion alleges abuse of the Civil Discovery Act and because she seeks 21 sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act, the hearing on Ms. Singh’s Request for Order filed 22 6/8/2026 is hereby continued to 10/2/2026 at 1:30 PM in Dept. 405A to join the hearing already 23 set on Mr.
Rindhe’s motion to compel filed 6/8/2026. 24 3) No later than Friday, 9/4/2026 at 5:00 PM (which is a date following the 8/27/2026 date upon 25 which Ms. Singh’s Certificate of Deposit matures, as Ms. Singh’s counsel previously informed 26 the Court at the 5/19/2026 hearing), Ms. Singh shall deliver to Room 402 a cashier’s check made 27 out to San Francisco Superior Court in the amount of $88,367.67 to be held in an interest-bearing 28 account by the Court. The Court will make a determination at a later date regarding which party 29 should receive the principal and any interest accrued on this sum.
1 4) Ms. Singh’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 2 5) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 3 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 4 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 5 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 6 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within 7 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 8 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 9
13
17
21
25
29