Opinion
A159812 A162688
04-01-2022
Adriana J. QUINTERO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven A. WEINKAUF, Defendant and Appellant.
Steven A. Weinkauf, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Alison J. Mannwieler and Alison J. Mannwieler, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Trial Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Trial Judge: Hon. Gerald J. Buchwald (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 18-CIV-05383)
Steven A. Weinkauf, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Office of Alison J. Mannwieler and Alison J. Mannwieler, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STREETER, J.
Plaintiff Adriana J. Quintero sued defendant Steven A. Weinkauf for stalking, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and domestic violence. The jury found in favor of Quintero on her stalking, IIED, and domestic violence claims, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages. Judgment was entered in Quintero’s favor for $1.3 million. The trial court then awarded Quintero approximately $850,000 in attorney fees and $60,000 in costs. A supplemental judgment was entered in Quintero’s favor for a total of $2.2 million.
In this consolidated appeal, Weinkauf claims that reversal of the judgment is required due to numerous evidentiary, instructional, and other errors. He also claims that reversal of the judgment requires reversal of the supplemental judgment, as Quintero would no longer be the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees and costs. We affirm. We also grant, in part, a request from the Family Violence Appellate Project (FVAP) for publication of the unpublished opinion in this case filed March 3, 2022.
The following is a brief summary of some of the factual and procedural background in this case, which we set out to provide context to the issues raised on appeal. Additional facts are included in our legal discussion.
Quintero filed a lawsuit against Weinkauf asserting four causes of action: (1) the tort of stalking, (2) assault, (3) IIED, and (4) the tort of domestic violence. The complaint alleged that after Quintero and Weinkauf ended them romantic relationship, Weinkauf shot arrows and discharged a firearm through the windows of Quintero’s business. It further alleged that Weinkauf committed these acts in disguise and under cover of darkness, but Quintero was ultimately able to identify him as the perpetrator. This civil action was preceded by a criminal action, in which Weinkauf pled guilty to stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9) with an enhancement for personal use of a dangerous and deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and a criminal protective order was entered. Weinkauf moved for summary judgment or adjudication on each cause of action. The motion was denied. The trial proceeded in three phases: (1) jury trial on the issues of liability and compensatory damages, (2) bench trial on the issue of Weinkauf's net worth, and (3) jury determination on the amount of punitive damages. During the first phase, Quintero testified that she met Weinkauf when they worked together as attorneys for the Public Administrator and Public Guardian of San Francisco County, and they subsequently started a romantic relationship that ended in December 2013.
In April, June, and August 2015, crossbow arrows were shot through the windows of Quintero’s law office building. Quintero then installed surveillance video cameras on the building. On January 3, 2017, there was another shooting that cracked a window of Quintero’s building— this time with some other weapon. Quintero reviewed the surveillance video footage and saw someone in a red Jeep fire a gunshot. She was unable, however, to identify the individual. On January 8, 2017, there was another shooting at her building. Upon reviewing the surveillance video footage, Quintero saw the same Jeep circling her office and identified Weinkauf shooting a crossbow.
Weinkauf proceeded at trial in propria persona. He conceded that he had shot a crossbow at Quintero’s building window once, but denied any involvement in the other shootings. The jury found in favor of Quintero on the stalking, IIED, and domestic violence claims and in favor of Weinkauf on the assault claim. The jury awarded Quintero $1.3 million in compensatory damages. It also found by clear and convincing evidence that Weinkauf had engaged in conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud.
In the second phase of the trial, the court determined Weinkauf's net worth to be $1.5 million. The jury returned for the third phase and awarded Quintero $6,000 in punitive damages. Judgment was entered in Quintero’s favor for $1,306,000. Weinkauf moved for a new trial, claiming various evidentiary and instructional errors and challenging the compensatory damages award as excessive. The court denied the motion.
Quintero filed a memorandum of costs, as well as a motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4. The court awarded Quintero $869,688.79 in attorney fees and $60,565.25 in costs. A supplemental judgment was entered in Quintero’s favor for a total of $2,236,254.04.
II. DISCUSSION
See footnote *, ante.
C. No Other Error
Beyond his claims of evidentiary and instructional error, Weinkauf argues there are several other categories of error that necessitate reversal of the judgment. We address and reject each in turn.
See footnote *, ante.
Our unpublished opinion in this case rejected all of Weinkauf's many claims of error, but we agree with FVAP that our discussion of one of his arguments—his sufficiency of the evidence attack on the stalking verdict—is worthy of publication. Weinkauf argues that there was no evidence at trial from which a reasonable trier of fact could find "exigent circumstances" to excuse the requirement for stalking under Civil Code section 1708.7, subdivision (a)(3)(A) that Quintero have demanded Weinkauf cease and abate his pattern of conduct. [1–3] " ‘We generally apply the familiar substantial evidence test when the sufficiency of the evidence is at issue on appeal.’ " (Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 301.) In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and "presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 181 P.3d 105.) Reversal for insufficient evidence "is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support’ " the jury verdict. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.)
[4] As a preliminary matter, we note that Quintero presented evidence that she did make a demand to Weinkauf. Quintero testified that she called Weinkauf after the three shootings in 2015 to discuss a legal issue. As she had not yet identified Weinkauf as the shooter, she told him that "somebody was shooting crossbow arrows through [her] building" and that "it needed to stop." Reviewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Quintero, we conclude that the jury could have reasonably determined that Quintero had demanded Weinkauf cease and abate his pattern of conduct. (Civ. Code, § 1708.7, subd. (a)(3)(A).)
[5] We similarly conclude there was substantial evidence supporting an alternative determination by the jury that there were "exigent circumstances" excusing the demand requirement. (Civ. Code, § 1708.7, subd. (a)(3)(A).) Photographs, surveillance video footage, and testimony showed that Weinkauf had shot both a crossbow and a gun into Quintero’s building. Indeed, a witness familiar with "Bloodsport" arrows— the type of arrow used in the shootings— testified that he would not shoot that type of arrow at a person or at a building where people work because it could be a deadly weapon. Given this evidence, the jury could have reasonably determined there were exigent circumstances that rendered Quintero’s communication of the demand to Weinkauf "impractical or unsafe." (Civ. Code, § 1708.7, subd. (a)(3)(A).)
See footnote *, ante.
See footnote *, ante.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment and supplemental judgment are affirmed. Respondent to recover costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR:
POLLAK, P. J.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.