Marriage of Arora CA6

Filed 5/27/25 Marriage of Arora CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of NIKHIL and H051703 SRIMAYE ARORA. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 17FL005143)

NIKHIL ARORA,

Appellant,

v.

SRIMAYE ARORA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.)

Appellant Nikhil Arora (father) appeals from an order requiring him to pay $65,000 in attorney fees and costs to respondent Srimaye Arora (mother). Those fees were awarded after a hearing where no court reporter was present. Mother moved ex parte in October 2023, requesting two things: an order regarding holiday travel plans for the parties’ children, and $65,000 in need-based attorney fees and costs under Family Code section 2030. Mother’s attorney declared that her office had provided the following services since being retained by mother in August 2023: 42 hours of attorney time at a rate of $450 per hour; 30.2 hours of paralegal time at

$275 per hour; and 6.7 hours of legal assistant time at $100 per hour. Counsel’s declaration described the services she had provided, including attending mother’s deposition and responding to father’s discovery requests. It also described anticipated future services, including preparing for and appearing at future hearings in the case. The declaration estimated $51,650 in additional professional fees for those services, consisting of $32,400 for attorney time and $19,250 for paralegal time. The declaration asserted that father earned over $40,000 per month. A separate form declaration signed by mother’s counsel indicated mother has a cervical spine injury and suffers from epileptic seizures, which adversely impact her ability to work; she was currently working on a contract basis for a real estate company. Father opposed the request, asserting in a declaration that mother’s attorney “does not know my finances.” He declared that he owed over $200,000 in credit card debt. He noted his pending request that mother pay him $40,000 in attorney fees “based on fraud” for failing to disclose income from a corporation she co-owned. Family Code section 2030, subdivision (a)(1) requires a court in a marital dissolution proceeding to “ensure that each party has access to legal representation,” which can include ordering “one party ... to pay to the other party, or to the other party’s attorney, whatever amount is reasonably necessary for attorney’s fees and for the cost of maintaining or defending the proceeding.” In deciding a request for attorney fees under the statute, “the court shall make findings” on whether a fee award is appropriate, whether there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel, and whether one party is able to pay for legal representation of both parties. (Fam. Code, § 2030, subd. (a)(2); see also Fam. Code, § 2032, subd. (b) [“In determining what is just and reasonable under the relative circumstances, the court shall take into consideration the need for the award to enable each party, to the extent practical, to have sufficient financial resources to present the party’s case adequately, taking into consideration, to the extent relevant, the circumstances of the respective parties described in [Fam. Code, §] 4320.”].) Family 2