Marriage of Gash and Ben-Noun CA2/3

Filed 5/3/16 Marriage of Gash and Ben-Noun CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of DRU GASH and LIMOR B258645 BEN-NOUN. ___________________________________ (Los Angeles County DRU GASH, Super. Ct. No. LD056298)

Appellant,

v.

LIMOR BEN-NOUN,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marshall Rieger, Judge. Affirmed. Robert F. Smith for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. ___________________________________

Appellant Dru Gash appeals from an order denying without prejudice his request to modify a child support order. We affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 7, 2011, Gash agreed to pay to his former wife Limor Ben-noun $1,000 per month in child support for their minor daughter. Thereafter, Gash filed a request to modify the support order and, in January 2013, the court found “a change of income to be temporary and therefore not a substantial change of circumstance to warrant a change in support orders from judgment of 7/7/2011.” On September 13, 2013, Gash, who was in default on his support obligation, filed the at issue request to modify the child support order. A back injury suffered in 2012 had gotten “progressively worse,” and friends and family were supporting Gash. According to Gash’s income and expense declaration, he worked about 20 hours per week and made $640 per month as a telemarketer. The child spent 95 percent of her time with mother. Gash then submitted, on July 11, 2014, another income and expense declaration stating that his job ended on April 1, 2014, and he worked 10 hours per week and made $600 per month. His financial situation changed significantly because he was “unable to work as much due to back injury and economy.” On January 17, 2014, the family court issued a seek-work order requiring Gash to conduct five job searches per week, 20 percent to be done in person. The parties returned to court on July 11, 2014, at which time Gash provided his job search record to the court. The court found Gash’s job search to be deficient: the “Court finds that [Gash] has sought employment positions which he [cannot] do and there are not enough job searches on his schedule of job searches to comply with the court order.” The court therefore denied the modification request without prejudice to refiling after completing appropriate job searches. The job search order remained in full force and effect.1