In re Marriage of Shimpi and Sonawane CA1/1

Filed 6/16/14 In re Marriage of Shimpi and Sonawane CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re the Marriage of ANJALI A. SHIMPI and NITIN D. SONAWANE.

ANJALI A. SHIMPI, A138566 Respondent, v. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. FDI-08-768096) NITIN D. SONAWANE, Appellant.

Appellant Nitin D. Sonawane appeals from the judgment entered in a marital dissolution action between him and respondent Anjali A. Shimpi. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in (1) determining the date of separation to be August 1, 2008, (2) awarding respondent temporary spousal support, and (3) conducting a coercive settlement conference. Because he has not supplied this court with an adequate record, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were married on January 3, 2003. The parties’ child was born in December 2003. Respondent states in her brief that she filed a request for dissolution of marriage on November 5, 2008. Appellant was served with process on October 7, 2008.

On November 30, 2012, appellant filed a pretrial statement in which he indicated the parties’ date of separation was contested. He claimed the date was December 12, 2006, while respondent asserted the date was August 1, 2008. In support of his assertions, he attached photocopies of several e-mail exchanges between him and respondent, as well as other family members. The dates on the messages range from September 21, 2003 to May 4, 2009. The messages reflect the demise of the parties’ relationship.1 On January 3, 2013, a hearing was held before the trial court. According to the court’s minute order, both parties appeared in pro per. They were voir dired as to the jurisdictional facts of the marriage. The court terminated the parties’ marital status and set the date of separation as August 1, 2008. Appellant was ordered to pay respondent $544 per month in temporary spousal support, and $1087 per month in child support. He was also ordered to maintain health insurance for the minor. The court reserved jurisdiction over the issues of child support, spousal support, and the enforcement of judgment regarding appellant’s pension plan. The parties were ordered to return on March 29, 2013 for a mandatory settlement conference and a review hearing regarding support. On March 5, 2013, the amended judgment of dissolution was filed. On May 3, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the amended judgment. On August 1, 2013, the trial court responded to appellant’s complaint regarding the conduct of the mandatory settlement conference. The court’s letter states, in part: “From an examination of all the evidence available to the court, it is my determination that the record does not support any allegation of improper conduct or any irregularity in memorializing the terms of the settlement.” DISCUSSION Appellant has failed to provide this court with sufficient record of the proceedings below. This failure dooms his appeal.