Nijjar v. Nijjar CA5

Filed 6/10/21 Nijjar v. Nijjar CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PARMINDER KAUR NIJJAR, F078265 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 8009802) v. SAWARN SINGH NIJJAR, as represented, etc., OPINION Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Alan K. Cassidy, Judge. Law Office of P. Fateh K. Sahota and P. Fateh K. Sahota for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Daniel A. Presher, Daniel A. Presher for Heather Fisher, Conservator of the Estate of Sawarn Singh Nijjar; Broderick Legal Group and William Broderick-Villa for Rani Nijjar, Conservator of the Person of Sawarn Singh Nijjar, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- After the court in a separate conservatorship action denied appellant Parminder Kaur Nijjar’s (also known as Parminder Kaur Phagura) (Parminder’s)1 claim that she was married to respondent, conservatee Sawarn Singh Nijjar (Sawarn), Parminder filed her petition in this proceeding seeking a determination that she is Sawarn’s putative spouse (petition or putative spouse petition). Heather Fisher (Fisher), the conservator of Sawarn’s estate, filed a motion for sanctions, asserting the petition was legally and factually frivolous and was filed for an improper purpose. The trial court granted Fisher’s motion, dismissed the petition, and imposed monetary sanctions against Parminder’s attorney. Parminder appeals. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s imposition of sanctions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Parminder claimed to be the wife of conservatee Sawarn. In the conservatorship action, the trial court ordered Parminder to provide it with written proof that she and Sawarn were married in a certified marriage in Punjab, India; if she was not able to do so, Sawarn’s daughter from his first marriage, Rani Nijjar (Rani), who is the conservator of Sawarn’s person, was authorized to deny the existence of a valid marriage. When Parminder failed to provide any written proof of the alleged marriage, a trial of that issue was held in the conservatorship action. In its ruling in that action, the trial court summarized the testimony of the witnesses; multiple witnesses produced by Parminder testified they attended the wedding of Parminder and Sawarn in May 1997, at a Sikh temple in Parminder’s village in Punjab, India. Parminder testified she married Sawarn at the Sikh temple in her village on May 24, 1997, with friends and family members present. The trial court noted “[t]his testimony was in stark contrast to [Parminder]’s testimony at a prior hearing several months ago, in which she told the Court that the 1 We refer to some parties by their first names for clarity and convenience, because they share a last name. No disrespect is intended. 2. wedding ceremony was ‘in secret’ …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals