Opinion
H049996
05-05-2023
XUDONG LI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. XUELIAN WU STUART, Defendant and Respondent
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 20DV000341
BROMBERG, J.
Plaintiff Xudong Li appeals from a restraining order against him under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). (Fam. Code, § 6200, et seq.) Li contends that the order, which enjoins him from certain conduct and contact with defendant Xuelian Wu Stuart, was not supported by substantial evidence. Because Stuart did not file a respondent's brief in this action, we consider this case upon the record on appeal and appellant's opening brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) Based on that record, we conclude that the restraining order was supported by substantial evidence and affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Family Code.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In 2019, Li and Stuart briefly dated and cohabited. After their relationship ended, each sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against the other and the trial court granted both requests.
Li filed the first request, seeking a DVRO against Stuart in May 2020. In support of this request, Li asserted that Stuart had abused, threatened, and harassed him. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Stuart from harassing, threatening, or contacting, Li, and set the request for hearing.
In September 2020, Stuart requested a DVRO against Li. Stuart asserted that, in addition to emotionally abusing her, Li physically assaulted her on August 27, October 21, and November 18, 2019, and attached photographs from those dates showing marks and bruises on her neck, hand, and forehead. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and set this request for hearing as well. Stuart later filed supplemental declarations asserting that Li had assaulted her on additional dates and that Li violated the temporary restraining order by contacting her former landlords which led them to abuse and mistreat her.
In January and February 2022, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the parties' DVRO requests. In support of his request, Li testified that he had cohabited with Stuart in his home from July to September 2019 but moved out because of her jealous and erratic behavior. After Li was forced to move back home in late October, he testified that he had several physical confrontations with Stuart, who had refused to leave the home. Although Stuart rented a nearby room in November, Li asserted that between December 2019 and May 2020 Stuart harassed and stalked him at his home and office. During this period Stuart frequently called Li in the middle of the night, leaving voicemails that became increasingly threatening and menacing. Finally, in May 2020, Stuart confronted Li outside his home, hitting him and pushing his new girlfriend. Li called the police, who served Stuart with an emergency protective order.
After testimony from Li, his new girlfriend, and four other witnesses presented by him, the trial court took testimony from Stuart and her witnesses. Stuart testified that she and Li began a romantic relationship in March 2019 but that in August 2019, Li began hitting her. She testified that Li is "very violent" and has "a quick temper," and that he would "release his anger on me." Indeed, Stuart continued, when Li wanted to hit her, he would "grab everything that he can get his hands on" and "hit me with that."
Stuart described four incidents from 2019 in particular. First, on August 27, Li hit her, causing her to fall from a chair, and the following morning he slapped so hard that she fell again and injured her lip. A photograph presented by Stuart showed that injury. Second, on October 21, Li grabbed her neck, causing a mark on it, which another photograph showed. Third, on October 24, Li hit her, causing a mark on her arm shown in yet another photograph. Fourth, on November 18, Li hit Stuart on the forehead and also bruised her hands when she tried to block him from hitting her, once again supported by a photograph of her injuries.
After Stuart finished testifying, she presented corroborating testimony from her niece and a friend. Stuart's niece testified that around October 23, 2019, she visited Stuart and saw a mark on her aunt's neck, which the niece described as a "choking mark" that "looked like someone had hit her." Around November 22, 2019, the niece again visited Stuart and observed that her hand and forehead were swollen. When the niece asked who had caused the injury, Stuart responded it was "the person that she loved." Stuart's friend testified that on December 22, 2019, she saw a mark on Stuart's neck and that Stuart said that Li had done it.
Stuart also testified that Li harassed her. Most significantly, she testified that Li contacted her business partners and told them not to do business with her. In a letter that Stuart included in her response to Li's DVRO request, Li told Stuart's business partners that Stuart had lied about business contacts in Malaysia and had just "made up a leather bag company." In addition, Li's letter accused Stuart of harassing him and said criminal charges had been brought against her for hitting him. The letter concluded that "I hope you all know this person and don't be cheated by her in the future!" Stuart also testified that her relationship with two landlords deteriorated after Li contacted them and, indeed, one of them treated her violently.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that both Li and Stuart had acted primarily as aggressors and physically abused each other. The court also found that both had engaged in harassment against each other. It also noted that Li had acted aggressively toward Stuart in the courtroom, which adversely affected his credibility in the court's mind, and that Li had failed to offer any explanation for how Stuart could have suffered the injuries shown by her evidence without some form of abuse by him. The trial court concluded that "[b]oth of these people need to stay away from each other" and granted mutual restraining orders prohibiting either party from contacting each other.
On March 3, 2022, the trial court entered a DVRO ordering Li to have no contact with, and to stay away from, Stuart until November 25, 2022. Li filed a timely notice of appeal on April 22, 2022.
II. Discussion
We review restraining orders issued under the DVPA for abuse of discretion in general and the factual findings underlying such orders for substantial evidence. (J.J. v. M.F. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 968, 975.) Because the DVPA gives trial courts broad discretion to determine whether to issue a restraining order, in determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion under the DVPA we examine"' "whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason." '" (In re Marriage of Fregoso &Hernandez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 698, 702.) Before turning to that issue, however, we address a preliminary matter.
A. Mootness
Because the trial court's DVRO lasted for only approximately nine months and expired while this appeal was pending, we must consider whether Li's appeal from the DVRO is moot. Appellate courts generally will not decide cases that are moot, and cases become moot" 'when the decision of the reviewing court "can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. [Citation.]'" (Steiner v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1485.) There are, however, several recognized exceptions to this rule, including where the issuance of restraining order "could have consequence for [the appellant] in . . . future court proceedings." (In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 199, 209.) Because the DVRO issued in this case could impact future judicial proceedings-Li appears from the record to be involved in divorce proceedings, and if children are involved, a DVRO may impact custody presumptions (§ 3044)-this exception applies and the restraining order warrants review on the merits.
B. The Restraining Order
Li argues that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing mutual restraining orders because Stuart's allegations of physical abuse against him are "suspect." In essence, Li disputes the trial court's assessment of the evidence presented by Stuart, and he asks us to reconsider Stuart's credibility and reweigh the evidence presented by her. We cannot do that. Under the substantial evidence standard applicable here (see, e.g., J.J. v. M.F., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 975)," '[w]e must accept as true all evidence . . . tending to establish the correctness of the trial court's findings . . ., resolving every conflict in favor of the judgment'" (Sabbah v. Sabbah (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 818, 823), and "make all reasonable inferences in support of the court's findings. [Citation]" (In re Marriage of Martindale &Ochoa (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 54, 61). As Stuart presented evidence of physical abuse, we must assume that the trial court properly credited it, and in light of the resulting finding that Li physically abused Stuart, the trial court acted well within the "bounds of reason" in issuing a DVRO against Li.
The purpose of the DVPA is to "prevent acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and to provide for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable these persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence." (§ 6220.) In keeping with this purpose, a court may issue a DVRO upon a showing "to the satisfaction of the court, [of] reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse." (§ 6300, subd. (a).) Moreover, "abuse" includes acts that intentionally "cause . . . bodily injury." (§ 6203, subd. (a)(1).) A court may not issue mutual restraining orders absent detailed findings of fact that both parties acted primarily as aggressors and neither acted primarily in self-defense. (§ 6305.)
The trial court's finding that Li physically abused Stuart is supported by substantial evidence. Stuart not only testified that Li was "very violent" and had a "quick temper" which he would take out on her physically. She also recounted specific incidents on (1) August 27 and 28, 2019 where he hit her, knocking her down and causing her lip to bleed, (2) on October 21, 2019 when he choked her, (3) on October 24, 2019 when he injured her arm, and (4) on November 18, 2019 when Li hit Stuart on the forehead and bruised the hand with which she tried to defend herself. Stuart supported this testimony with photographs of her injuries, and she presented corroborating testimony from two witnesses. This evidence is more than sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Li physically abused Stuart, especially in light of his aggressive behavior at the hearings and failure to offer an innocent alternative explanation for Stuart's injuries.
Because we conclude that the trial court acted within the "bounds of reason" in issuing a restraining order based its findings of physical abuse, we need not consider whether substantial evidence also supports the trial court's finding of harassment.
III. Disposition
The domestic violence restraining order against appellant Li is affirmed. As respondent made no appearance in this appeal, there are no costs to award.
WE CONCUR: GREENWOOD, P.J., BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.