Marriage of Memon CA1/5

Filed 4/15/21 Marriage of Memon CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FATIMA and SHAKIL MEMON.

FATIMA SYED, Appellant, A157964 v. (Contra Costa County SHAKIL MEMON, Super. Ct. No. D0904978) Respondent.

In this marital dissolution action, Fatima Syed appeals from a choice of law order made during trial on several reserved issues, including spousal and child support and property division. We conclude the order is not appealable and dismiss the appeal.1

We requested and received supplemental briefing on appealability. 1

We refer to the parties by their first names for convenience and clarity, intending no disrespect. During her marriage to Shakil Memon, Fatima’s name was Fatima Memon. Fatima requested oral argument. Because we dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits, Fatima does not have a right to oral argument. (Moles v. Regents of University of California (1982) 32 Cal.3d 867, 871–872.) 1

BACKGROUND Fatima and Shakil married in 2002. They lived in California until 2005, when they moved to New Jersey. Fatima gave birth to a son in New Jersey. Three years later, Fatima and Shakil separated; Fatima returned to California, and Shakil moved to India. The following year, Fatima petitioned to dissolve the marriage in Contra Costa County Superior Court. The trial court dissolved the marriage in 2011 and granted Fatima physical custody of the parties’ son. Several years later, the court awarded Fatima child support. Shakil appealed. We affirmed. (In re Marriage of Memon (Feb. 28, 2016, A143745/A145315) [nonpub. opn.].) The court set a February 2014 trial date to resolve several issues, including child and spousal support and property division, but trial did not begin until October 2018. At the outset of trial, the court determined the date of the parties’ separation and ruled on the applicability of Shakil’s affirmative defenses to Fatima’s misappropriation of marital property claim. Then the parties presented evidence and argument on their domicile for purposes of dividing marital property. The court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the domicile issue, and to be ready to “argue the other [unresolved] issues,” including spousal support and one of Shakil’s affirmative defenses, when trial resumed. The parties filed supplemental briefs. Trial resumed in February 2019. On the next day of trial, which was not reported, the court determined it did “not have jurisdiction to divide N[ew] J[ersey] property.” It ordered counsel for Shakil to prepare an order. In June 2019, the court signed a written order “on the issue of choice of law” for property “acquired, used, disposed of, etc. after the parties became domiciled in New Jersey.” The court found the “parties[’] domicile in