Case Number: 18-CIV-05383

1

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 1050 Mission Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org

Minute Order

ADRIANA J QUINTERO vs. STEVEN A. WEINKAUF, et al 18-CIV-05383 12/06/2018 9:00 AM Hearing on Demurrer Hearing Result: Held

Judicial Officer: Greenberg, Susan Location: Courtroom 2B Courtroom Clerk: Rosa Vega Courtroom Reporter: Diane Pessagno

Minutes Journals – No appearance by any parties herein or their counsel of record.

Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:

DEFENDANT STEVEN A. WEINKAUF’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF ADRIANA J. QUINTERO

As to each asserted cause of action, Defendant Steven Weinkauf’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Adriana Quintero’s 10-4-18 Complaint is OVERRULED, on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Defendant did not serve the Demurrer in compliance with Code Civ. Proc. 1005(b) (requiring service 16 court days prior to the hearing, plus five additional days if mailed), and is overruled on this basis alone. The Demurrer also fails on the merits, as explained below.

The First Cause of Action states a claim for stalking under Civ. Code 1708.7. Code Civ. Proc. 430.10(e). The Complaint alleges exigent circumstances made it impractical or unsafe for Plaintiff to request that Defendant cease his conduct because, for example, Defendant was acting under cover of darkness, concealed his identity, and was employing deadly weapons. Complaint, 4-11. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for relief under 1708.7. The cause of action is not uncertain. Code Civ. Proc. 430.10(f). A demurrer for uncertainty lies where defendant cannot reasonably respond-i.e., cannot determine what allegations must be admitted or denied, and/or what are claims are directed against him. Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. The allegations here are sufficiently clear to enable Defendant to respond.

The Second Cause of Action states a claim for assault. Code Civ. Proc. 430.10(e). Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ use of a crossbow and gun placed her in apprehension of harmful and/or offensive conduct. Construed liberally, these allegations sufficiently state a claim for relief at the pleading stage.

The Third Cause of Action states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Code Civ. Proc. 430.10(e). The allegations regarding Defendant’s use of a crossbow and firearm adequately plead “outrageous” conduct. CACI 1600.

The Fourth Cause of Action states a claim for domestic violence under Civ. Code 1708.6. Code Civ. Proc. 430.10(e). The alleged facts suggest Defendant intentionally or recklessly placed Plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to herself. 5-9, 24.

Case Number: 18-CIV-05383

2
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of documents filed in this case and the related Contra Costa County Superior Court case is GRANTED. Evid. Code 452(d).

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.