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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

 Appellant,

v.

STEVEN K. SHIO,

 Respondent.

 G058636

 (Super. Ct. No. 15D007575)

 O P I N I O N

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.

* * *
2

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 

Superior Court in August 2015.1 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.”

1

 An earlier petition for dissolution of the marriage had been filed by Tao in the Orange 

County Superior Court in 2013, and was later dismissed. No documents from this 

proceeding have been included in the record on the current appeal.
3

On October 22, 2019, this court dismissed the first appeal due to Tao’s 

failure to procure the record on appeal. Tao filed motions to vacate the dismissal and 

reinstate the first appeal and for relief from default. This court denied Tao’s motions on 

the ground she had failed to make the required showing of good cause. Tao then filed a 

petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied.

While the petition for review was pending, on December 4, 2019, Tao filed 

a second notice of appeal, which again was purportedly taken from a “[j]udgment of 

dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer,” and again attached the August 2019 

minute order denying the motion to set aside the dismissal (the second appeal). The 

second appeal is the matter presently before us. 

Shio filed a motion to dismiss the second appeal on the ground it was 

duplicative of the first appeal, which had been dismissed with prejudice. We granted Tao 

leave to file a late opposition to the motion to dismiss, and she did so.

2

 

2

 Concurrently with the motion to dismiss, Shio filed a request for judicial notice. Tao 

opposed the request for judicial notice on the ground the documents are improper new 

evidence. While we generally do not consider postjudgment evidence on appeal (In re 

Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413), when the evidence is relevant to a motion to dismiss 

the appeal, it may be considered (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 676). 

 We will take judicial notice of the following documents attached to the request as 

records of a California court (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d)(1), 459; Stephenson v. Drever 

(1997) 16 Cal.4th 1167, 1170, fn. 1; Smith v. Selma Community Hospital (2010) 

188 Cal.App.4th 1, 45): (1) appellate docket, Tao v. Shio, appeal No. G058349; 

(2) motion to dismiss, Tao v. Shio, appeal No. G058349, filed September 30, 2019; 

(3) Court of Appeal order, Tao v. Shio, appeal No. G058349, filed October 17, 2019; 

(4) Court of Appeal order, Tao v. Shio, appeal No. G058349, filed November 20, 2019; 

and (5) California Supreme Court docket, Tao v. Shio, appeal No. S259370.

 Shio also filed a motion to declare Tao to be a vexatious litigant. In light of our 

dismissal of the appeal, Shio’s motion to declare Tao a vexatious litigant is moot.
4

DISCUSSION

“The dismissal of an appeal shall be with prejudice to the right to file 

another appeal within the time permitted, unless the dismissal is expressly made without 

prejudice to another appeal.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 913.)

Where an appeal is dismissed for failure to timely file a transcript, and the 

dismissal does not specify it is without prejudice, a later-filed appeal from the same 

judgment cannot be taken. (Garibaldi v. Garr (1893) 97 Cal. 253; Spinetti v. 

Brignardello (1880) 54 Cal. 521.) “Where an appeal regularly taken is dismissed for 

want of prosecution, the dismissal operates as an affirmance of the judgment, and a 

second appeal cannot be allowed.” (Chamberlain v. Reed (1860) 16 Cal. 207.)

If the dismissal of an appeal does not specify that it is without prejudice to 

a subsequent appeal, then the dismissal is with prejudice. (Property Owners of 

Whispering Palms, Inc. v. Newport Pacific, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 666, 677.) 

Tao’s response to the motion to dismiss begins with the following 

misstatements regarding the appellate record: “Supreme Court found case G058349 

occur[r]ed a misunderstanding that can be explained clearly and corrected. . . . The case 

returned to the Court of Appeal continued trial.” These contentions are objectively false. 

The remainder of Tao’s opposition to the motion to dismiss reargues why the first appeal 

should not have been dismissed, and makes ad hominem attacks on Shio’s counsel. Tao 

never addresses the key issue before us—whether the dismissal of the first appeal was 

with or without prejudice. 

We conclude that the dismissal of the first appeal was with prejudice. The 

second appeal is from the same postjudgment order as was the first appeal. The second

appeal must therefore be dismissed.
5

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. Respondent to recover costs on appeal.

FYBEL, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

THOMPSON, J.

GOETHALS, J.