Marriage of Kapila and Deshmukh CA1/5

Filed 6/3/25 Marriage of Kapila and Deshmukh CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re the Marriage of NIDHIKA KAPILA and NIRAJ DESHMUKH.

NIDHIKA KAPILA, A170589

Appellant, (Alameda County v. Super. Ct. No. HF17847696) NIRAJ DESHMUKH, Respondent.

Nidhika Kapila (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s orders granting respondent Niraj Deshmukh’s (Husband) request for Family Code section 2711 sanctions, and denying Wife’s request for section 271 sanctions. We reverse and remand both orders. BACKGROUND The parties were married in 2008 and had two children when the dissolution petition was filed in 2017. A status-only judgment issued in December 2017 with jurisdiction reserved over all remaining issues.2

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.

2 A trial on reserved issues was held in April 2023 and judgment issued

in March 2024, with jurisdiction reserved over child and spousal support.

1

In June 2022, the court issued a stipulated support order pursuant to which Husband paid Wife a monthly amount of child support and no spousal support. In July 2023, Husband filed a request to modify the child support order because he had been laid off from his job. A hearing was set for October. In August 2023, Wife filed her own request to change the support order, seeking an increase in child support and the establishment of spousal support because she also had been laid off. In a supporting declaration, Wife averred multiple times that she had not received severance pay when she was laid off. In an October 2023 responsive declaration to Wife’s request, Husband averred that he had started a new job with a higher salary, agreed to an increase in child support, and requested spousal support be reserved. Husband noted that Wife “claims she did not receive a severance package; however, I have no way to confirm whether this is accurate or not.” Wife subsequently submitted a responsive declaration to Husband’s July 2023 request. Wife again averred that she had received no severance pay. Among other relief, she requested section 271 sanctions due to Husband’s request to modify child support, his failure to earlier disclose his layoff and new employment, and his failure to meet and confer about modifying child support. At the October 2023 hearing, the court temporarily modified child support upwards, reserved the issue of spousal support, and reserved Wife’s request for sanctions. The matter was continued to January 2024. In December 2023, Husband filed a motion for section 271 sanctions. Husband averred that he had subpoenaed records from Wife’s former employer and received those records after the October hearing. Because of confidentiality provisions in Wife’s severance agreement, Husband did not