Chaudhary

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant Kailash Chandra Chaudhary discovered in 2007 that his friend Girdhari Gupta, to whom Chaudhary had given power of attorney while he was incarcerated, had sold Chaudhary’s home for $155,000 instead of $99,000 as Chaudhary had believed. In 2009, Chaudhary brought an action arising from the allegedly fraudulent home sale that did not name Girdhari’s wife, respondent Chandra Gupta, as a defendant. (Chaudhary v. Stevens (Super. Ct. Santa Clara County, No. 109CV149223.) Chaudhary subsequently learned during Girdhari’s deposition that Chandra1 had received a portion of the escrow

1 For purposes of clarity and meaning no disrespect, we will refer to Girdhari Gupta and respondent Chandra Gupta by their first names. Although the record reflects that respondent was erroneously sued as “Chandra Gupta” because her name is spelled “Chanda Gupta,” the case caption retains the name “Chandra Gupta.” We will therefore refer to respondent as “Chandra” throughout our opinion. proceeds from the allegedly fraudulent home sale. Chaudhary did not amend the complaint in Chaudhary v. Stevens, supra, No. 109CV149223 to substitute Chandra for a Doe defendant. Instead, in December…