Schmid v. ThompsonGas CA1/4

Filed 8/20/25 Schmid v. ThompsonGas CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID et al., A170526 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Sonoma County THOMPSONGAS, LLC. Super. Ct. No. SCV270322)

Defendant and Respondent.

Frear Stephen Schmid and Astrid Schmid (collectively the Schmids) challenge the trial court’s entry of judgment in ThompsonGas, LLC’s (ThompsonGas) favor after the court sustained a demurrer to two causes of action in the Schmids’ second amended complaint (SAC) but overruled the demurrer as to others. We dismiss the appeal on the basis it is taken from a nonappealable order. I. BACKGROUND The Schmids, the owners of a 61-acre property located in Sonoma County, sued ThompsonGas for installing and connecting a propane tank in violation of a preliminary injunction order that had been issued in a separate lawsuit between the Schmids and the Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department.1

1 In that lawsuit, Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department et al.

(Super. Ct. Sonoma County, 2020, No. SCV266225), the Schmids alleged the

1

The Schmids also sued the fire department, the fire department’s insurance carrier, and the County of Sonoma (County) for purportedly breaching a settlement agreement that had been reached in the other lawsuit. As relevant here, the SAC claimed defendants violated local code provisions, breached a contract, and engaged in public and private nuisance, among others. ThompsonGas demurred to each of the causes of action alleged against it. The trial court overruled ThompsonGas’ demurrer as to five claims and sustained with leave to amend the demurrer to the seventeenth and eighteenth causes of action for public and private nuisance. The Schmids did not amend their two nuisance claims. ThompsonGas subsequently filed an answer to the surviving causes of action. ThompsonGas also submitted a proposed “Dismissal and Judgment in Favor of Defendants as to Causes of Action 17 and 18” (Dismissal Judgment), which the trial court signed and filed three days after ThompsonGas filed its answer to the remaining claims. ThompsonGas filed a notice of entry of judgment or order relative to the Dismissal Judgment, and then proceeded to file a memorandum of costs. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION The Schmids argue on appeal that the Dismissal Judgment is not a final judgment or an appealable order, “th[eir] appeal requires dismissal,” and they should be awarded costs on appeal because “the activities of Thompson[Gas] forced [them] to pursue the appeal to establish the judgment is not an appealable judgment.” Alternatively, the Schmids contend that if the Dismissal Judgment is an appealable order, the trial court erred in