Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #2

01/06/2015 Ex Parte scheduled for 01/14/2015 at 08:45:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.

Click to expand...

75 01/13/2015 Ex Parte scheduled for 01/14/2015 at 08:45:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.

Click to expand...

K_Z said:

New entry #75 on the San Diego ROA.


https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml Case # 13-75418

Next scheduled on docket:

01/30/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil) - Motion for Protective Order

Click to expand...

Now being the time previously set for a Civil Case Management Conference in the above entitled cause,
counsel and/or parties appear as noted above and the hearing commences.

Counsel inform the Court that there is an Early Evaluation Hearing in a Federal case in about 8 weeks. A
determination of which case should be stayed pending resolution in the other case needs to be made.

The Court reschedules the following hearings:

Adam Shacknai's Demurrer is advanced pursuant to Court's motion to 05/01/2015 at 01:30PM before
Judge Katherine Bacal.

Nina Romano's Motion to Strike is advanced pursuant to Court's motion to 05/01/2015 at 01:30PM
before Judge Katherine Bacal.

Nina Romano's Motion to Dismiss or Stay is advanced pursuant to Court's motion to 05/01/2015 at
01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

Civil Case Management Conference is continued to trail the above referenced hearings pursuant to
Court's motion to 5/01/2015 at 1:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

Parties waive notice.

Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order set for 1/30/2015 at 1:30PM is vacated.

DATE:

Click to expand...

1&2&3 said:

Can't answer your question. I would like to put in my :twocents: on why Dina has brought in the attorney from Phoenix. Just a gut feeling that he is in cahoots with Jonah. Jonah wants someone in that court room reporting directly to him so he knows exactly what is going on. IMO. Yes, the attorney is only qualified in federal court, but he will hear from the grapevine and keep Jonah advised.IMO.

Now, who is Jonah so worried about - Adam, Dina, or himself?

Click to expand...

K_Z said:

So, from this minute order, it seems now the legal ball is being metaphorically punted back to the federal case waiting to see what happens in the Early Evaluation Hearing, to see whether the state or federal case should proceed, if I understand that correctly. (And no guarantees that I did, lol!)

Click to expand...

Thereafter, the parties were ordered to participate in an Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference set for December 9, 2014. (Docket No. 50). The parties
complied with the order, and one of the key topics discussed at the conference
with Magistrate Storms was how to resolve the fact that Plaintiffs had parallel
actions pending in State and Federal Court. (Greer Decl ¶ 5). After an in depth
discussion with the Magistrate, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that Plaintiffs would request a stay of the Federal Court action, and Magistrate Storm ordered
that the papers supporting the motion to stay be filed by January 15, 2015. (Docket
No. 55).

Although Plaintiffs believe the State Court complaint was timely as to both
the claim by Ms. Zahau’s estate and the claim by her parents, the Defendants have
filed demurrers to the state court Complaint arguing, inter alia, that the claims are
time barred. (Greer Decl ¶ 4). The demurrers are set to be heard on May 1, 2015.
(Greer Decl ¶ 4). If the Defendants’ motions are successful, the only remaining
claim relating to Ms. Zahau’s death will be the wrongful death claim pending in
this court, which was indisputably timely filed and within the jurisdiction of this
court. (Greer Decl ¶4). Thus, Plaintiffs risk severe prejudice if they dismiss the
federal court action prior to resolution of the state court action, including
expiration of the time to appeal any final orders of the state court. (Greer Decl ¶4).

Although dismissal of the federal court action could severely prejudice the
claim of Ms. Zahau’s parents, proceeding with discovery and trial in both actions
would cause unnecessary expense to all parties and both courts, and create the
possible of conflicting verdicts. Thus, Plaintiffs have elected to stay this action.
Since the state court action involves all claims arising from Ms. Zahau’s death, the
matter can be completely resolved in state court. Conversely, even if the federal
case was resolved, the claim of Ms. Zahau’s estate would still need to be handled
in the state court action, conceivably resulting in two trials. And lastly, at this
point there has not been any discovery in the federal court action, whereas
thousands of pages of documents have been exchanged and depositions have
already been taken in the state court action. (Greer Decl ¶7). It is likely that by the
time this motion is heard, all parties will have been deposed in the state court
action. (Greer Decl ¶7). Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the most
prudent and appropriate course is to stay these proceedings pending final
resolution of the state court action.

Click to expand...

5. This issue was raised with Magistrate Storms at the Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference on December 9, 2014. After an in depth discussion with
the Magistrate Storms, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that Plaintiffs would request
a stay of the Federal Court action, and Magistrate Storm ordered that the papers
supporting the motion to stay be filed by January 15, 2015.

6. In deciding which of the two actions to stay, I analyzed the factors
presented in various published opinions cited in Plaintiffs’ supporting papers.
Specifically, I believe that the following facts support staying the federal action:

First, solely California law is implicated in both the state and federal action. Thus,
the state court has jurisdiction to rule on all the claims that are presented. Second,
proceeding with a single action clearly promotes judicial economy as it avoids
duplication of discovery and judicial resources. Third, the parties can get complete
relief in the state court action, whereas if the state court action were stayed, the
survivor action for which the federal court refused jurisdiction would still need to
be tried. Fourth, the parties in the federal action are also in the state court action,
the Defendants are identical and the federal claim Plaintiffs are also parties to the
state court action. Fifth, disposition will be prompt in state court since at the recent
case management conference Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal was setting
trials in September 2015. Sixth, Superior Court is just as convenient to the parties,
counsel and witnesses as Federal Court, since the two courthouses are across the
street from the other. And lastly, there is no prejudice to any party if the federal
court action is stayed.

7. The status of the proceedings also weighs in favor of staying this
action, since no discovery has been undertaken in the federal action, whereas the
state court action is in full swing, with written discovery being demanded and
responded to, thousands of pages of documents exchanged, several depositions
taken, seven more depositions scheduled in the next thirty days, and it is likely
that all parties will have been deposed by the time this motion is heard.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 15th day of January of 2015 in the City of San Diego, State of
California.

s/ C. Keith Greer, Esq.
C. Keith Greer, Esq.,
Declarant
3
DECLARATION OF C. KEITH GREER, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

Click to expand...

bourne said:

Welcome to discussion!

Doesn't sound right. According to insider, Jonah and Dina are estranged and Jonah wants no contact with Dina. He has also kept his older children away from Dina. So why would he provide a lawyer for Dina to use, and why would Dina accept his lawyer?

Click to expand...

K_Z said:

Item #93 on San Diego ROA- Nina Romano adds an attorney.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Anton C. Gerschler now listed along with previous attorney John D. Marino under Nina's representation

http://northcountylawfirm.com/ (not much there-- under construction, but there's a pic of the small office building)

Click to expand...

New claims in 2011 Coronado mansion death

Team 10 is uncovering new details about claims made by the mother of Max Shacknai, the 6-year old boy who died in his father's Coronado mansion in 2011.

Investigator Melissa Mecija examined a lawsuit filed by Dina Shacknai, who claims her son said he was worried just weeks before he fell to his death.

Watch video for full report..

http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/new-claims-in-2011-coronado-mansion-death-01262015

Click to expand...

Carioca said:

Three and a half years later and Dina comes up with this.:facepalm:
Now she is suing Jonah..

Click to expand...

Originally by K_Z
Arizona Attorney Daniel Benchoff was approved by Judge Whelan, to assist DS's local attorneys on the Federal WDS (which is currently stayed, as the State WDS proceeds), and entered today on the docket.

12/19/2014 58 ORDER Approving Pro Hac Vice. Added attorney Daniel Benchoff. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 12/16/2014.(ag) (Entered: 12/19/2014)

https://www.pacer.gov/ Case 13-01624; Docket entry #58.

Click to expand...