Cromer

Cromer v. Barton CA1/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 18, 2015A143053California3,165 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

We begin by summarizing the facts as alleged by Cromer. Under the applicable standard for reviewing a dismissal after a demurrer is sustained, we accept as true “all facts . . . properly pleaded by [the] appellant” and “all facts which may logically be inferred from the facts alleged in the complaint.” (Branson v. Martin (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 300, 302.) One evening in November 2012, Cromer went to the Clayton Club, a bar in Clayton owned by the Clayton Club defendants. Around 11:00 p.m., Michael Moore arrived with several other people, including brothers Christopher and Nicholas Quadrato.3 Christopher was admitted into the bar and was served alcohol while he was underage. Moore was 22 years old. Around 12:20 a.m., Christopher got into a physical fight inside the bar with Eric Weindel. Mistakenly believing that Cromer was involved in the fight because of his association with Weindel and was going to hurt Christopher, Moore approached Cromer from behind and hit him on the head with a beer bottle. The impact knocked Cromer to the ground and caused bleeding, nervous system damage, and other serious bodily injuries. Moore exited the bar and was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.