Longman v. Bian

── Longman v. Bian ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 251237-U No. 1-25-1237 Order filed May 8, 2026 Sixth Division NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ SOPHIA LONGMAN, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 25 OP 72989 ) WENQIANG BIAN, ) Honorable ) Peter Michael Gonzalez, Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding. JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice C.A. Walker and Justice Gamrath concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Circuit court’s judgment terminating and vacating an emergency stalking no- contact order and denying a plenary order is affirmed where the judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶2 Sophia Longman appeals pro se from a judgment terminating and vacating an emergency stalking no-contact order she obtained against Wenqiang Bian and denying her request for a plenary order under the Stalking No-Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 21/1 et seq. (West 2024)). On appeal, Longman contends the judgment is erroneous because (i) Bian stalked and harassed No. 1-25-1237 her, (ii) Bian’s wife committed acts constituting third-party stalking and harassment, (iii) Bian’s “false” calls to 911 constituted stalking and harassment, (iv) the court should have considered Bian’s “criminal history,” (v) the court arbitrarily decided that Bian’s “false” 911 calls and “criminal history” were insignificant, and (vi) the court did not rule impartially or use the appropriate discretion. ¶3 We affirm. The trial court concluded no acts of stalking occurred; instead, this was a dispute over ownership of a cat. Under this record, the judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶4 Background ¶5 On April 7, 2025, Longman, pro se, requested for emergency and plenary stalking no- contact orders against Bian, who lived in a neighboring apartment building. She described three encounters. On March 26, around 9:45 p.m., she said Bian rang her doorbell for about 45 minutes. The next evening, she said Bian and his wife pounded on her door, yelled, and threw objects. On April 6, as she walked home, she said Bian crossed the street and, yelled from behind: “[D]on’t expect this to be over. I’m not finished with you. You hear me!” She reported the incidents to police but attached no reports. ¶6 Longman sought a court order prohibiting Bian from (1) committing or threatening to commit stalking, (2) contacting Longman, and (3) knowingly coming or remaining within an unspecified distance of her residence. Longman also requested the court prohibit contact or harassment by a third party. The court entered the emergency order and set the matter for hearing. ¶7 At the hearing, Longman testifi