Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gyuri Lee and Mankit Wong met in 2015 after Wong responded to Lee's online advertisement, beginning what Lee described as a business relationship involving companionship and sex. In October 2024, Lee petitioned for a domestic violence restraining order against Wong and obtained a domestic violence temporary restraining order. Wong responded by arguing their relationship did not qualify as a dating relationship under Family Code section 6210, which defines such relationships as frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.
On July 15, 2025, the superior court held a hearing at which the parties argued solely on the basis of previously filed declarations and exhibits whether their relationship met the statutory standard. The court concluded it did, announced it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, and set a long cause hearing for October 31, 2025. The court also extended the temporary restraining order until that date. A written order issued July 23, 2025, memorialized these rulings, setting the October hearing date, extending the temporary order, and recording that Lee had standing to proceed to trial, though it did not mention a factual finding regarding the dating relationship.
Wong filed a timely notice of appeal and explained in his Civil Case Information Statement that he was appealing under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a) from an order finding a dating relationship under Family Code section 6210. He expressed concern that failing to appeal would waive his argument in later contesting the restraining order. The Court of Appeal notified the parties in January 2026 that it was considering dismissing the appeal for lack of an appealable order, and after hearing from the parties, deferred decision before ultimately dismissing the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that the July 23 order was not appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(6), which authorizes appeals from orders granting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction. While acknowledging that this provision authorizes appeals from domestic violence restraining orders and temporary restraining orders, the court explained that the July 23 order did not grant, dissolve, or refuse to grant or dissolve such an order. Instead, it merely extended in effect a previously issued temporary restraining order until a long cause hearing could be held to determine whether a permanent restraining order should issue.
The court rejected Wong's argument that extending the temporary order was equivalent to granting it. None of the cases Wong cited suggested that an order merely extending the term of a temporary restraining order is directly appealable. The court noted that Wong was effectively asking it to review the original temporary restraining order, which he could have appealed when first granted but did not. An appellate court may not review an order from which appeal could previously have been taken. The court also declined to construe the statutory language, which speaks of granting an injunction not extending one, to convert routine scheduling orders into opportunities for new appeals.
The court further held that the single judgment rule prevented review of the trial court's factual finding regarding the dating relationship and its conclusion that Lee had standing to proceed to trial. These interlocutory rulings will be amenable to appellate review only when the trial concludes and a final judgment is entered. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of an appealable order and awarded costs on appeal to Lee.
Key Takeaways
- An order that merely extends the term of an existing temporary restraining order is not appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(6) as an order granting an injunction.
- A party who fails to appeal a temporary restraining order when first granted cannot obtain review of that order by appealing a later order that simply extends it.
- The single judgment rule bars appellate review of interlocutory orders and factual findings made before final judgment, except as specifically authorized by statute.
- A trial court's finding that a party has standing to proceed to trial on a domestic violence restraining order petition is an interlocutory ruling reviewable only on appeal from the final judgment.
- Routine scheduling orders that continue existing temporary orders pending a full hearing do not create new opportunities for appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the limits of appellate jurisdiction over domestic violence restraining order proceedings. While temporary and permanent restraining orders themselves are appealable, orders that merely extend temporary orders pending a full evidentiary hearing are not. This prevents piecemeal appeals and ensures that appellate courts review the complete factual record developed at trial rather than preliminary rulings made on limited declarations.
The ruling also reinforces the single judgment rule's application in family law matters, confirming that factual findings and standing determinations made before trial are interlocutory and reviewable only after final judgment. Parties dissatisfied with temporary restraining orders must appeal them promptly when issued, rather than waiting for later orders that continue them in effect.