Court Opinion

ID: 9394198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 17:03:48.181605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.847921
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/11/23 Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Dept. CA1/5

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID et al. ,
     Plaintiffs and Appellants,
                                                                     A164620
     v.
 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE                                             (Sonoma Super. Ct.
 DEPARTMENT, INC.,                                                   No. SCV266225)

     Defendant and Respondent.

      Frear Stephen Schmid and Astrid Schmid appeal an order
modifying a preliminary injunction that imposed various
restrictions on a fire department’s use of a garage housing its fire
trucks and related equipment. The Schmids, whose rural
property abuts the garage, correctly contend a then-pending
appeal from the preliminary injunction had divested the trial
court of fundamental jurisdiction when it issued the modification
order. The order is therefore void and must be reversed.

                                    BACKGROUND
       The Schmids sued the Two Rock Volunteer Fire
Department for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging among
other things that its newly constructed garage violated local code
provisions and zoning ordinances and that the use permit for the
facility was null and void. In August 2021, the trial court
partially granted the Schmids’ motion for a preliminary

                                                1
injunction, limiting the department’s activities at the garage and
circumscribing its use of a propane tank and heater, external
lighting, and a mobile generator pending resolution of the
litigation.

       The department did two things: it moved for
reconsideration in the trial court, and it appealed the preliminary
injunction in Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department v. Schmid et
al., No. A163534. The record in appeal No. A163534 was filed in
this court on October 12, 2021.

      The trial court heard argument on the motion for
reconsideration on February 9, 2022. In response to concerns
about the superior court’s jurisdiction over the matter while the
appeal was pending, the department stated in open court that it
was abandoning the appeal. On February 14, 2022, it attempted
to abandon the appeal by filing a form in the superior court.

       Three days later, the trial court issued an order granting
reconsideration and modifying the preliminary injunction by
lifting various restrictions on lighting, parking, and heating at
the garage. The Schmids filed the instant appeal from that
order. Then, on April 11, 2022, the department filed a request in
this court to dismiss its appeal from the preliminary injunction.
On receipt of the request we dismissed the appeal and issued the
remittitur the same day. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.244(c)(2).)1

                         DISCUSSION
        While the Schmids challenge the order granting the motion
for reconsideration on several grounds, we need only reach the
first: it is void for lack of jurisdiction.

      1Unspecified citations to rules are to the California Rules
of Court.
                                 2
      Once an appeal is filed, the trial court loses subject matter
jurisdiction over any matter embraced in or affected by it.
(Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180,
196-198 (Varian).) A trial court proceeding that seeks to modify
an appealed order, as here, is “ ‘embraced’ ” or “ ‘affected by’ ” the
appeal. (Id. at pp. 189-190.) Accordingly, while the appeal is
pending the trial court has no power to modify the order, and
such an order issued during that period is void. (Id. at pp. 196-
198; Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).)

       The department does not dispute this principle, but
contends superior court jurisdiction was restored when it
abandoned its appeal from the preliminary injunction on
February 14, 2022, three days before the trial court ruled on its
reconsideration motion. It is mistaken. The filing of an
abandonment of appeal in the trial court effects a dismissal of the
appeal and restores the lower court’s jurisdiction if the
abandonment is served and filed before the appellate record is
filed. (Rule 8.244(b).) Here, however, the appellate record had
been filed in October 2021, some four months before the
department filed an abandonment of appeal in the trial court.
That being so, to restore the trial court’s jurisdiction over the
matter the department was required to file a request for
dismissal in the appellate court. (Rule 8.244(c)(1).) Indeed, the
abandonment form the department filed in the trial court
explains that “[i]f the record has already been filed in the Court
of Appeal, you cannot use this form; you must file a request for
dismissal in the Court of Appeal.” (Bold omitted.) The
department did not do that until two months after the trial court
had granted its motion for reconsideration. While the mistake
may seem like a technicality, the courts rely on parties to file the
correct forms in the correct courts, according to the rules.

      The result is inescapable: the order granting
reconsideration was issued while the department’s appeal from

                                  3
the preliminary injunction was pending in this court.
Accordingly, it is void for lack of fundamental jurisdiction.
(Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 196-198; Waremart Foods v.
United Food & Commercial Workers Union (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
145, 154 [no jurisdiction to modify preliminary injunction during
pendency of appeal]; Environmental Coalition of Orange County,
Inc. v. AVCO Community Developers, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d
513, 525-526 [same].) The error requires reversal, so we will not
consider the Schmids’ further contentions that the modification
order improperly allowed the department to engage in “
‘criminally proscribed’ ” conduct and was unjustified by changed
circumstances or to serve the ends of justice. (See Code Civ.
Proc., § 533.)

                        DISPOSITION
     The order is reversed. The Schmids are entitled to costs on
appeal. (Rules 8.278(a)(1), 8.278(a)(2).)

                                4
                                   ______________________
                                   BURNS, J.

We concur:

____________________________
JACKSON, P.J.

____________________________
SIMONS, J.

A164620

                               5