Marriage of Shio CA4/3

Filed 8/18/20 Marriage of Shio CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of HAN HONG TAO and STEVEN K. SHIO.

HAN HONG TAO, G058636 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 15D007575) v. OPINION STEVEN K. SHIO,

Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John L. Flynn, Judge. Dismissed. Respondent’s request for judicial notice. Granted. Respondent’s motion for an order deeming Appellant a vexatious litigant. Denied as moot. Han Hong Tao, in pro. per., for Appellant. Law Offices of Kenneth Stevan Bürgi and Kenneth Stevan Bürgi for Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION The present appeal is the second appeal from the same postjudgment order. The first appeal was dismissed by another panel of this court due to appellant Han Hong Tao’s failure to timely designate the record on appeal. The order dismissing the first appeal was with prejudice. Therefore, the current appeal must be dismissed.

BACKGROUND Han Hong Tao and Steven K. Shio were married in December 2009. They separated in May 2012, and their marriage was dissolved in China on March 26, 2013. Tao filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage in the Orange County 1 Superior Court in August 2015. In March 2018, Shio filed a motion to dismiss Tao’s petition. The court entered a minute order dismissing the case in June 2018, and entered written findings and orders after hearing in October 2018. Tao filed a motion to set aside the dismissal in April 2019. The trial court denied that motion in a postjudgment order on August 2, 2019. Tao filed a notice of appeal on September 19, 2019 (the first appeal); the first appeal was purportedly taken from a “[j]udgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer,” but attached the August 2019 minute order denying the set aside motion. Shio filed a motion to dismiss the first appeal as an untimely appeal from the judgment. Another panel of this court liberally construed the first appeal as a timely appeal from the postjudgment order and denied the motion to dismiss the first appeal, with the following note: “The timely appeal of the August 2019 order cannot be used to revive an untimely appeal from the underlying October 2018 judgment.”