Marriage of Singh and Nibber CA1/2

Filed 1/10/25 Marriage of Singh and Nibber CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re the Marriage of SARTAJ SINGH and KAMALJEET KAUR NIBBER.

SARTAJ SINGH, Respondent, A170519 v. (Alameda County KAMALJEET KAUR NIBBER, Super. Ct. No. HF23137159) Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Kamaljeet Nibber (Nibber), who is self-represented, timely appeals a status-only marital dissolution judgment entered on May 6, 2024.1 The judgment dissolves her marriage with respondent Sartaj Singh (Singh) and reserves jurisdiction over all remaining issues other than child custody. The month before Singh commenced this dissolution proceeding (on

We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our 1

opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].)

1

February 1, 2023), Nibber had moved with their minor son to Canada and initiated a child custody proceeding in the Canadian courts, and so the trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction over child custody and visitation issues on the basis of inconvenient forum. Nibber now appeals the status-only judgment, asserting a number of claims of error. Her brief here is full of hyperbole and does not appear to provide a fair and balanced statement of the factual record, in violation of the Rules of Court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); Perry v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1088, 1096.) She has not filed a reply brief. We affirm the judgment. Singh commenced this dissolution action on February 1, 2023. Eight months later, on October 31, 2023, he filed a request asking the trial court to bifurcate the issue of marital status and enter a status-only judgment of dissolution. Nibber who, as noted, was by then living in Canada, opposed the bifurcation motion in written declarations and orally, principally on the grounds that the Canadian court should address custody issues and that granting a divorce would harm their son because it would further diminish Singh’s willingness to visit him.2 The trial court granted the motion over her objection, entered the status-only judgment and this appeal followed. We perceive no error in the judgment. Several of Nibber’s arguments for reversal concern issues the trial court did not rule upon, but that are embraced within the scope of the