Shao v. Yao CA2/8

Filed 3/20/26 Shao v. Yao CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

YONGHONG SHAO, B341969

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 17STFL01972) v.

JINYONG YAO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michelle L. Kazadi, Judge. Affirmed. Jinyong Yao, in pro. per, for Defendant and Appellant. Yonghong Shao, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION We affirm the trial court order because appellant Jinyong Yao does not cite to the record in the briefing and provides a deficient record for our review. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND For context, we summarize facts as presented in the briefing and as gleaned from the filings and minute orders in the incomplete record before us. Yao’s briefing states that he and respondent Yonghong Shao signed a divorce settlement agreement in April 2019, and Shao agrees there was a 2019 judgment. The trial court case summary reflects a stipulated judgment package filed on April 18, 2019, and stipulated judgment entered on May 8, 2019. The record includes a partial copy of a divorce settlement agreement, but it is plainly missing pages as the first section in the record is labeled “Section 3,” and the first page of this document begins with a sentence fragment. On June 21, 2024, Shao filed a motion requesting that Yao transfer title to a 2007 Toyota Sienna, and reimburse Shao for payment of registration and insurance in an amount of $1076.14. On July 31, 2024, Yao filed a responsive declaration opposing Shao’s request. On August 15, 2024, the trial court’s minute order provides that Yao must sign documents to transfer title of the Toyota and provide the pink slip to Shao. The trial court denied Shao’s request for reimbursement based on her own failure to comply with the judgment until May 2024. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, we presume the trial court’s orders are correct, and an appellant has the burden of identifying prejudicial error to support reversal. (Jameson v. Desta (2018)