Castro v. Spurgeon Painting CA1/4

Filed 2/24/25 Castro v. Spurgeon Painting CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

MAYA CASTRO, Plaintiff and Appellant, A170158 v. (Sonoma County SPURGEON PAINTING, INC., et Super. Ct. No. SCV269513) al., Defendants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In this employment case, appellant Maya Castro, proceeding pro se on appeal, seeks review of an order sustaining a demurrer as to two causes of action in a multicount complaint in circumstances where other causes of action remain pending and there has been no order of dismissal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of an appealable order.

1 This matter is proper for disposition by a memorandum opinion in

accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. (See Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19, Abbreviated Opinions; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850– 855 [use of memorandum opinions].)

1

I. BACKGROUND Appellant brought an initial suit against Spurgeon Painting Inc. (Spurgeon) and its owner and operator, Thomas Meacham, and then added certain defendants in a Second Amended Complaint, including Tija Buckalew, Spurgeon’s human resources manager. Generally, appellant alleges that Spurgeon once employed her; that during her employment, she suffered discrimination, retaliation, and other forms of workplace mistreatment; that she was ultimately terminated; and that all of these adverse actions were taken against her because she suffers from a medical disability. In the operative Third Amended Complaint, appellant pleads eight causes of action. The seventh cause of action in the Third Amended Complaint is for abuse of process and the eighth cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Spurgeon, Meacham and Buckalew demurred to the Third Amended Complaint, attacking all eight causes of action. The trial court overruled the demurrer in part and sustained the demurrer in part, leaving a number of causes of action pending. With respect to the seventh and eighth causes of action, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Although there has been no final judgment or order of dismissal as to the action as a whole or as to any claims or parties, appellant filed a notice of appeal. In her notice of appeal, appellant checks a box claiming that she seeks review of a “Judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer.” Despite her claim that she appeals from a “Judgment,” appellant’s notice of appeal attaches as a copy of the “judgment, decree or order” she appeals from only trial court’s March 21, 2024 order on respondents’