Marriage of Rattan and Prasad CA1/3

Filed 11/20/25 Marriage of Rattan and Prasad CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re the Marriage of KOMAL RATTAN and ABHIJIT PRASAD.

KOMAL RATTAN et al, Respondents, A172697 v. ELANA THIBAULT, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. VF07356209) Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal arises out of Komal Rattan and Abhijit Prasad’s marital dissolution.1 In July 2018, Rattan asked the trial court to disqualify — based on a conflict of interest — and sanction Prasad’s attorney, Elana Thibault. After a two-day hearing, the court disqualified Thibault, struck her pleadings, and imposed $5,000 in sanctions. It ordered Rattan’s counsel to

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We need not delve into the dissolution’s long history — the register of actions is presently 161 pages long and spans 18 years — to decide this appeal. Rattan did not file a respondent’s brief, so we decide this matter on the record, the opening brief, and appellant’s oral argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)

1

prepare a written order, and it ultimately approved and filed the order in January 2019 (2019 order). A bit more detail: in May 2018, “Prasad filed a substitution of attorney form naming Thibault as his new counsel.” (In re Marriage of Rattan and Prasad (Sept. 24, 2020, A157880) [nonpub. opn.].)2 “Rattan objected . . . based on a conflict of interest created by Thibault’s employment with Rattan’s former attorney.” (Ibid.) In her motion to disqualify Thibault, Rattan explained “she retained Anu Peshawaria in 2008 to represent her in these dissolution proceedings and related domestic violence cases. Peshawaria represented and advised Rattan in regards to the family law proceedings for somewhere between three and six months, but ultimately Rattan became dissatisfied with her and retained new counsel. Thibault later worked as an attorney in Peshawaria’s office.” (Ibid.) Rattan learned Peshawaria was not licensed to practice law in California, but “Peshawaria held herself out as an attorney and Rattan reasonably believed her to be so.” (Ibid.) At the conclusion of the July 2018 hearing, the trial court granted the motion to disqualify Thibault. (Ibid.) It filed its written order in January 2019. Thibault has repeatedly — and unsuccessfully — challenged the 2019 order. Her first appeal (Rattan v. Prasad (June 28, 2019, A155472) [nonpub. opn.]) was dismissed because she filed a notice of appeal on Prasad’s behalf despite being “disqualified from representing him when she caused it to be filed.” In her second appeal (In re Marriage of Rattan and Prasad, supra, A157880), her disqualification was affirmed, and her appeal of the sanctions