Fang v. Li CA6

Filed 7/21/25 Fang v. Li CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SHIJING FANG, H051848 (Santa Clara County Petitioner and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CH012154)

v.

YUXIAO LI,

Defendant and Appellant.

Petitioner Shijing Fang obtained a civil harassment temporary restraining order against defendant Yuxiao Li without notice to Li. The trial court scheduled the petition hearing for a date beyond the time limit set by Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (g), which also had the effect of extending the temporary restraining order beyond the time limit set by Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (f). Li argues on appeal that the temporary restraining order is void because it extended beyond that statutory time limit. We will affirm the order because we conclude the statutory time limits at issue here are directory rather than mandatory such that the order was valid. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Fang petitioned for a civil harassment restraining order against Li on December 14, 2023. The petition alleged that Li had stalked Fang and her domestic partner in the second half of 2023. Li allegedly obtained Fang’s business address and work schedule under false pretenses. The petition alleged Li confronted Fang at her clinic on December 12, 2023, and demanded a conversation, which Fang declined. Li

was asked to leave, but instead “violently banged on the locked backdoor of [Fang’s] office.” The petition sought a temporary restraining order without notice to Li. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order on December 15, 2023 and set a hearing for January 23, 2024 (39 days after issuance). The temporary order stated it would expire at the end of the January hearing. Li was served with the petition and temporary restraining order on December 29, 2023, the same date as Li’s alleged violation of the order. Li requested a continuance of the hearing. The court granted the continuance, entering an order in January 2024 which rescheduled the hearing to a date in February 2024. That order also stated the temporary restraining order would remain in effect until the continued hearing date. Li appealed, referring to both the December 2023 and January 2024 orders. II. DISCUSSION A. THE APPEAL IS NOT MOOT While this appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in the trial court. Fang then moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. Li opposed dismissal, arguing that she remains subject to a warrant issued for misdemeanor contempt of court (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4)) based on an alleged violation of the temporary restraining order at issue in this appeal.1 “A court is tasked with the duty ‘ “to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in