Marriage of Chollera and Ray CA2/4

Filed 8/19/21 Marriage of Chollera and Ray CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re the Marriage of BIJAL B291787 CHOLLERA and RAKESH RAY. (Los Angeles County BIJAL CHOLLERA, Super. Ct. No. KD082145)

Respondent,

v.

RAKESH RAY,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Don Christian, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed. Rakesh Ray, in pro. per., for Appellant. Bijal Chollera, in pro. per., for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION In June 2018, the trial court denied appellant Rakesh Ray’s August 2017 request for order (RFO) to modify child and spousal support, finding the matter should be heard by a child support commissioner.1 On appeal, Ray fails to address this finding, arguing instead that the court ignored the changed circumstances he presented, committed fraud, and was involved in a conspiracy to steal money on behalf of his ex-wife, respondent Bijal Chollera. Chollera urges us to affirm the order below and award sanctions against Ray. We affirm the court’s denial of Ray’s RFO, but deny Chollera’s request for sanctions.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS Chollera and Ray married in February 2001 and separated in May 2011. They have two minor children. Chollera filed a divorce petition in July 2011. In March 2015, a judgment was entered dissolving the marriage, ordering Ray to pay Chollera child and spousal support, and disposing of real and personal property. Ray’s motion to set aside the judgment was denied, and we affirmed the judgment on appeal. (Chollera v. Ray (Feb. 7, 2017, B263180) [nonpub. opn.].) After the Supreme Court denied