Shamina v. Urdenko
Filed 11/4/10 Shamina v. Urdenko CA1/1
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 ONE
ANASTASIA SHAMINA,
Plaintiff
and Appellant,
v.
YEVGENIY URDENKO,
Defendant
and Respondent.
A125613
(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. HG06280384)
Appellant Anastasia Shamina
(Shamina) brought this civil action
against her former husband, respondent Yevgeniy Urdenko (Urdenko), for rape,
assault, and battery. A jury found
against her and in favor of Urdenko.
Shamina appeals from the judgment, asserting evidentiary errors, misconduct on the
part of Urdenko's counsel, and insufficient evidence. We affirm.
Procedural Background[1]
Shamina
and Urdenko met in Russia in the mid-1990s. Shamina moved to Germany in 1998 to study at the University of Osnabrueck. Urdenko was married in 1998 and moved to the United States around 1999, with an H-1B
worker's visa from Seva Technology. H-1B
visas are nonimmigrant visas for specialized workers with a college degree that
can be adjusted for permanent residency.
In
March 2004, Urdenko called Shamina from the United
States seeking information for a relative about studying in Germany. During this conversation, Shamina inquired
about Urdenko's immigration status and asked if Urdenko knew â€
| Description | Appellant Anastasia Shamina (Shamina) brought this civil action against her former husband, respondent Yevgeniy Urdenko (Urdenko), for rape, assault, and battery. A jury found against her and in favor of Urdenko. Shamina appeals from the judgment, asserting evidentiary errors, misconduct on the part of Urdenko's counsel, and insufficient evidence. Court affirm. |
| Rating |
