Wilcox v. Wang CA1/4

California Court of Appeal Mar 27, 2025 No. A171148Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments because the appellant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating error, providing only unsupported factual assertions without legal argument or citations to the record.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in renewing a restraining order against the appellant.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's request for a restraining order against the respondent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.”

“Appellant’s self-represented status does not exempt her from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve her of her burden on appeal.”

Filed 3/27/25 Wilcox v. Wang CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

MINGLI WANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, A171486 v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. HEIDI K. WILCOX, No. 24CV085031) Defendant and Respondent.

HEIDI K. WILCOX, A171148 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 23CV035517) MINGLI WANG, Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Pro se appellant Mingli Wang (Wang) seeks review of adverse judgments entered in favor of respondent Heidi Wilcox (Wilcox) in two

1 This matter is proper for disposition by a memorandum opinion in

accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. (See Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19, Abbreviated Opinions; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum opinions].)

related civil harassment cases, one in which the court renewed a previously issued restraining order against Wang (Alameda County Superior Court No. 23CV035517, at issue in A171148) (No. A171148), and another in which the court denied Wang’s request for a restraining order against Wilcox (Alameda County Superior Court No. 24CV085031, at issue in A171486) (No. A171486). On our own motion, we consolidated the two appeals for decision. In No. A171486, appellant’s opening brief makes the following representations of fact: “Heidi Wilcox sprayed me with a water gun on June 4th 2023. She walked up to me multiple times and threatened me. On November 3th 2023, she broke my mailbox and tore it off the wall and left it on the floor. In December 2023, she broke my boiler several times and gave me a heart attack. She stole from me many times. On February 23 2024, she returned to my property . . . and tried to steal from me again. I caught her and called the police. During that time, she kept insulting me and threatened me in person. She repeatedly gave false testimony in court and provided false documents to hurt me in person.” In support of these representations, appellant provides no citations to the record, such as it is.2 Similarly, in No. 171148, appellant’s opening brief makes the following representations of fact, here too without citation to the record: “I have not done anything that Heidi Wilcox accused me of. She did not present any evidence to prove her point in the trial on July 31, 2024,” the

Wilcox v. Wang CA1/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief