Vyas v. Vyas CA4/3

Filed 11/15/21 Vyas v. Vyas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SUJATA VYAS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G059409

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01049369)

BHASKAR CHANDRAKANT VYAS, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James Di Cesare, Judge. Affirmed. Mirch Law Firm, Kevin J. Mirch and Marie C. Mirch for Plaintiff and Appellant. Barton Klugman & Oetting, Joseph Carpello and Terry L. Higham for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Sujata Vyas petitioned to confirm an arbitration award against her ex- 1 husband, Bhaskar Vyas, which was obtained by default due to Bhaskar not appearing at the arbitration. Well, there was a good reason for that. None of the pleadings were served at his current address. To the contrary, most of the pleadings in the case were “served” on Bhaskar at Sujata’s home, where Bhaskar had not lived for several years. The court found Bhaskar had no actual notice of the arbitration and set the award aside. We affirm.

FACTS

Sujata and Bhaskar were married in 1981. During the course of the marriage, Bhaskar worked primarily as an engineer, but he engaged in part-time work as a stockbroker between 1992 and 1997. The parties divorced in 2009. Sujata bought out Bhaskar’s separate property interest in the residence, and in 2011 Bhaskar moved to Seattle for work. In 2015, Sujata filed a “Statement of Claim” with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), arising out of Bhaskar working as a stockbroker during their marriage. FINRA claims are subject to arbitration and initiated online. FINRA was required to effectuate service on Bhaskar. Sujata provided FINRA an address for Bhaskar that was a post office box. The petition additionally named Bhaskar’s former employers; First Affiliated Securities and Interfirst Capital Corporation. Early in the arbitration proceeding Interfirst Capital Corporation was dismissed on the ground that any wrongdoing occurred prior to 2001, and there was a six-year statute of limitations that barred Sujata’s claim. First Affiliated Securities made no appearance.