Marriage of Shokoohy and Rahgoshay CA4/3

Filed 1/6/15 Marriage of Shokoohy and Rahgoshay CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of FARIBA SHOKOOHY and MOHAMMAD RAHGOSHAY.

FARIBA SHOKOOHY, G048004 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09D005410) v. OPINION MOHAMMAD RAHGOSHAY,

Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Claudia Silbar, Judge. Dismissed. Merritt L. McKeon for Appellant. Fariba Shokoohy, in pro. per., for Respondent. * * * In these marital dissolution proceedings, appellant Mohammad Rahgoshay

(appellant) challenges an order denying his motion for reconsideration. By so doing, he has endeavored to appeal from a nonappealable order and we must dismiss his appeal. For reasons we shall show, however, even if we had jurisdiction to hear his appeal, we would conclude that the court did not err in denying his motion. I FACTS In these acrid proceedings between appellant and his ex-wife, Fariba Shokoohy (respondent), the parties dispute, among other things, whether respondent should pay appellant spousal and child support and, if so, how much. Respondent, a medical doctor, claims appellant has been misrepresenting for decades that he is disabled. She says he is perfectly healthy and has been fraudulently collecting Social Security disability income while working in construction, real estate, and property management. Appellant claims, inter alia, that respondent misrepresented her income to the court before it entered judgment on reserved issues. After judgment was entered awarding him no spousal support, appellant filed a motion to set aside the judgment. When the set aside motion was denied, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. While the motion for reconsideration was pending, appellant filed an appeal from the order denying the set aside motion. The appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. Ultimately, the court denied the motion for reconsideration. Appellant then filed the instant appeal, from the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We issued an order requesting appellant to file a supplemental letter brief addressing whether his appeal should be dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order, and inviting respondent to file a responsive supplemental letter brief. Appellant filed his supplemental letter brief on December 5, 2014. Respondent declined to file a responsive supplemental letter brief.