Opinion
A159812, A162688
03-03-2022
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.
Certified for Partial Publication.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, the opinion filed on March 3, 2022, is certified for publication with the exception of parts II.A.–B., II.C.1.–6., II.C.8.–9., and II.D.
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 We also grant, in part, a request from the Family Violence Appellate Project (FVAP) for publication of the unpublished opinion in this case filed March 3, 2022. I. BACKGROUND
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 their 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
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.
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 .
7. Jury Questions
Weinkauf argues that the court erred in its response to two jury questions sent during deliberations. First, the jury asked, "With respect to these charges, can you provide a definition of ‘imminent’ under the definition of ‘abuse’ under domestic violence. Is ‘imminent’ unspecified timing in future? Or is ‘imminent’ immediate (e.g. right now) like I have a gun & will shoot you dead right now[?]" The court and the parties found a definition submitted in Weinkauf's motion for summary judgment papers, researched the definition, and sent the following response to the jury: "One requested definition of ‘imminent’ is ‘near at hand; mediate rather than immediate; close rather than touching; impending on the point of happening; threatening; menacing; perilous.’ (Black's Law Dictionary) The perception of imminent danger is to be viewed from the perspective of the threatened person." After the response was sent to the jury, Weinkauf stated that he disagreed with the definition. The trial court stated that Weinkauf had not objected to the definition at the time it was drafted and the response had already gone to the jury. Accordingly, we deem the argument forfeited. ( People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 350, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 355.)
Second, Weinkauf argues that the court also erred in responding to a jury question during deliberations in the third phase of trial. Weinkauf represents that the only reference to the question in the record is the court's minute order indicating a note was received from the jury. The record does not include the question, any associated discussion between the parties and the court, or the response sent to the jury. These omissions render the record inadequate to review Weinkauf's claim. ( Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 143 [appellant has "an affirmative obligation to provide an adequate record so that we may assess whether the trial court abused its discretion"].)
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.
ROSS, J.**
** See footnote *, ante .