Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #3

I am opening this thread for discussion of the wrongful death suit filed on the 13th. Please stay on topic. Please do not bicker or derail the thread with information that is not pertinent.

Thanks,

Salem

Here are the posts from the County Lawsuit thread:

Carioca said:

(Since WDS thread is closed, am posting this here)
WDS has been refiled in Superior Court State of CA

Greer & Associates
Gaston & Gaston
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
REBECCA ZAHAU, deceased,
ROBERT ZAHAU, deceased,
ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU,
ESTATE OF ROBERT ZAHAU,
MARY ZAHAU-LOEHNER,
and PART Z. ZAHAU

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

[…] EQUITABLE TOLLING
4. On July 12, 2013, one day prior to the two-year statute of limitations expiring on claims arising from the July 13, 2011 murder of Rebecca Zahau, Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants ADAM SHACKNAI, DINA SHACKNAI, NINA ROMANO and DOES 1 through 50, in the United States District Court, Southern District of California (Case Number:13-CV-1624-W-NLS) based on diversity jurisdiction over the first cause of action (wrongful death) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and supplemental jurisdiction over the second cause °faction (assault and battery), third cause of action (negligence) and fourth cause of action (conversion) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (collectively, the "survival actions").

5. On November 12, 2013, the District Court dismissed the federal action without prejudice.

6. Therefore, the statute of limitations for all causes of action of the named Plaintiffs arising from the murder of Rebecca Zahau are tolled under the doctrine of equitable tolling to this date, November 13, 2013. Thus, this action is timely filed.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.

37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

entry date: 11/14/2013
Civil Case Management Conference scheduled for 08/01/2014 at 10:30:00 AM at Central in C-67 William S. Dato.

Click to expand...

bourne said:

Zahau lawyer Greer had REFILED WDS in Superior Court of San Diego, CA on 11/14/2013.

Statute of limitations has been "tolled" on basis of *Equitable tolling*.

37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

So the WDS proceeds. Case management conference is scheduled for Aug. 1, 2014 with Judge William S. Dato. :loveyou:

So long defendants. Good riddance. Hope you get CP and not just :jail:

JUSTICE for REBECCA ZAHAU and her family.

Click to expand...

kittychi said:

So happy about this. But what does "case management conference" mean? August 1??? The wheels of justice sure move slowly. But it will allow the defendants time to get their personal affairs in order before they are taken away.

:floorlaugh:

Click to expand...

Mrs. Holmes said:

I just noticed that.... hopefully it means January 8th 2014

Click to expand...

Mrs. Holmes said:

Judge William S. Dato is very respected

http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=3318

Click to expand...

K_Z said:

I'm hopeful we will be able to have a new thread for this newly filed case. Until then, I thought I'd post the entire re-filed Wrongful Death civil suit pdf here:

14 pages

View attachment 38960

Click to expand...

kittychi said:

Thank you for posting that, K_Z. I know we have discussed here the mention in the suit that Rebecca's parents were dependent on her for some level of support. The phrase that strikes me is that plaintiffs are entitled to funeral and burial costs. The LHK troop would have you believe that Jonah paid for the entire thing.

Also...reading through this document, plus earlier today I read Dr. Bove's report on Max--when I stand back and look at the big picture, I see Dina's entire play to re-open Max's case as nothing but smoke and mirrors to distract from looking directly at her for clues in Rebecca's death. I know this sounds harsh, but I cannot help considering that Dina exploited her son's death to shield herself. I hope I am wrong, but IMO it has this appearance.

Sorry, Salem, I know I am OT, I don't see a new thread yet for the refiling of the WDS.

Click to expand...

bourne said:

Am giving a shout-out and wave to Carioca for posting about the refiling of the suit first :loser:

I communicated with AZlawyer. She says that the Addison case in CA will save the Zahau's claim for "Equitable Tolling". So I looked up the case.

Here are more info, BBM, on what equitable tolling does with respect to the law and how it balances justice for the plaintiffs and defendants, and how it applies to the Zahau, Addison and other cases: http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/addison-v-state-california-30505

"We have previously indicated that the equitable tolling doctrine fosters the policy of the law of this state which favors avoiding forfeitures [21 Cal.3d 321] and allowing good faith litigants their day in court. [2b] As with other general equitable principles, application of the equitable tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public interest or policy expressed by the Tort Claims Act limitations statute. (See City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496-497 [91 Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 423]; Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297 [61 Cal.Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245].)

[1d] In our view, the balance in this case must be struck in plaintiffs' favor. If the tolling doctrine were not applied, plaintiffs would be denied a hearing on the merits of their claim. The doctrine's application, on the other hand, should not substantially undermine the policy of prompt resolution of claims. As we have noted, plaintiffs filed their state court action within nine months after their right to sue arose and by reason of the federal suit, defendants were fully notified within the six-month statutory period of plaintiffs' claims and their intent to litigate. Defendants were informed at all times of the nature of plaintiffs' claims. Any delay resulting from plaintiffs' original erroneous choice of forum was minimal. Unlike our decision in Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, supra, 68 Cal.2d 599 which raised the prospect of a 21-year tolling period, under the circumstances herein minimal uncertainty or delay could result when the limitations period is tolled during pendency of a timely filed federal suit subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."

Click to expand...

bourne said:

Kudos to the Zahau lawyers for making STRONGER and CLEARER statements about the culpability of the defendants in Rebecca's MURDER in this refiled WDS (BBM):

"GENERAL ALLEGATIONS/ STATEMENT OF FACTS

17. On or around the morning of July 13, 2011, Defendants ADAM, DNA
NINA, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, conspired to plan, and did
in fact, murder REBECCA ZAHAU in Coronado, California."

I like this plain, articulate, concise language, as I'm certain the new judge does too :loser: Excellent, Zahau lawyers!

Click to expand...

HEADS UP - Please stay on topic. This is the WDS thread. There is a media thread, which is NO DISCUSSION, and a thread for the County Law Suit to obtain information on the investigation.

Be mindful of where you post or your post will disappear.

Thanks,

Salem

ETA: I will also reopen the thread for Attorney questions and again, please stay on topic and ONLY ask questions of our verified lawyers (thank you so much AZLawyer!)

Salem

Complaint:

View attachment 38965

Notice of Related Case:

View attachment 38966

Zahau notice of case assignment:

View attachment 38968

Zahau Stipulation to Alternative Dispute Resolution Process:

View attachment 38967

Zahau Notice to the Litigants:

View attachment 38969

Original summons:

View attachment 38970

New legal development/Judge's Ruling on Dina vs. Jonah

"SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-009289 03/19/2014
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 1 & 2

CLERK OF THE COURT HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK S. Brown Deputy DINA MARIE MARIE SHACKNAI LUIS P GUERRA DAVID CAREY SHAPIRO v. JONAH SHACKNAI, et al. WILLIAM J MALEDON DAVID B ROSENBAUM
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

Following oral argument on March 10, 2014, the Court took under advisement the Rule 12(B) Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Jonah Shacknai and Jonah Shacknai 1999 Revocable Trust or, Alternatively Motions to Strike and for Definite Statement. Upon further consideration, the Court finds as follows.

Plaintiff’s complaint is inadequate even under Arizona’s notice pleading rules. There are simply too many gaps to allow the Court to do anything more than speculate about hypothetical facts that might entitle her to relief. That the Court cannot do. Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Ins. Agency, Inc., 216 Ariz. 509, 515 ¶ 12 (App. 2007), aff’d in relevant part sub nom. Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 420 ¶ 14 (2008). In particular, an allegation that Mr. Shacknai was negligent in leaving young Maxfield with the Misses Zahau does not state a claim for wrongful death unless, at a minimum, his being left with them resulted in his wrongful death. Paragraph XXII of the complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that Maxfield’s being left with the Zahaus “caus[ed] catastrophic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries and other severe injuries,” but offers no clue as to how, an omission not remedied by the frequent dark hints (themselves unsupported by pled facts) about the Zahaus’ “violent propensities.” There is no suggestion at all in the complaint as to what the trust did or failed to do, or on what ground its joint and several liability is based. (The same is true of the two corporate defendants.)

At the same time, there are many paragraphs having no possible relevance to this case, such as those alleging some form of respondeat superior; the Court is particularly curious about the “rules, regulations and manuals, and generally accepted policies and procedures” that govern parenting (paragraph XXVII).

And the complaint’s overindulgence in the colorful leads at paragraph XXXIII to bemusement (what are the “regular child duties” performed by a six-year-old of which Plaintiff has been deprived?) and confusion (the Court doubts that, as a matter of law, it is possible for an action to be “concurrently grossly negligent, careless, reckless, violent, willful and wanton&#8221.

The Court therefore orders that the complaint be redrafted to conform to Rule 8 by stating adequate facts that, if proved, would entitle Plaintiff to relief.

It hopes that, in the course of redrafting, Plaintiff’s counsel will take a vigorous blue pencil to the original, removing irrelevant material and a substantial proportion of the adjectives. The Court expects that in the redrafted Complaint, if alternative theories are being pursued, the Complaint will make that clear. The Complaint, at a minimum, also needs to indicate which causes of action are being alleged against which defendant or defendants.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no later than April 15, 2014. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will grant Defendants’ Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Strike without prejudice.
Effective April 15, 2014 new civil rules and forms are in effect for managing cases moving to trial. Be sure to review the new Ci"

~~~~~~
My summary:

Basically the court rejects Dina's complaint vs. Jonah, telling her that her complaint is incomplete, full of unnecessary, irrelevant adjectives and allegations unsubstantiated by any evidence and wants her to rewrite another complaint with actionable causes specified and to include appropriate, reasonable premises.

In particular the court found that the complaint alleging Zahau as having "violent propensities" is UNSUPPORTED by any factual findings and wonders with BEMUSEMENT (aka laughter) what "REGULAR CHILD DUTIES" are and how actions can be simultaneously "reckless and negligent" yet "willful and wanton".

In other words, Dina once again, exaggerates, hyperbolizes, goes to ELABORATE LENGTHS with UNFOUNDED, INVALID CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE in the complaint against Jonah (and indirectly against Rebecca of causing injuries to Max). Of significance, such ELABORATE EXAGGERATED ACTIONS were also found at the crime scene of Rebecca's murder. Recall the rope-bindings of hands behind back, rope binding of feet, rope dragged to bed and over visible courtyard balcony railing, gag, noose, nudity, crazy 3rd person message painted on door, multiple paintbrushes, multiple knives, etc.

Jeez, what kind of lawyer would encourage DS to submit all that nonsense to the court? The lawyer had to know the judge would send it back to be rewritten. lol.

respondeat superior (had not a clue what this term meant so I goggled it)

A legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superiorRespondeat Superior

So is DS saying Jonah is an employee of his trust or is Dina saying Rebecca is an employee of Jonah and his trust?

Thanks bourne !!!

fran said:

I'll open a new thread today as I understand there's a new development.

In order to keep this forum thread open we need:

The baiting back and forth to stop.

The personal attacks to stop. Remember attack the post not the poster.

There are NO participants in this case that have been charged with a crime. All we have are accusations. The accusations aren't even by LE, but victim's survivors. There's also no one that's been convicted of anything regarding this case. Therefore, NO ONE is to be referred to as a murderer or any other names. Use their given names only.

Limit speculation, judgment, comments that could be hurtful to either side. Let's deal with facts only. Links must be provided.

Haven't these families been through enough?

tia for your cooperation,
fran


Please continue here:

Click to expand...

:bump:

The judge gave Dina and her representatives until April 15th to submit an amended complaint. IANAL, but it does not appear to be uncommon for a judge to give a plaintiff an opportunity to redraft their complaint? The Zahau's submitted an amended complaint outlining specific allegations in their WDS. Seems to be fair practice.

ETA - are the dates correct, 2014 not 2015?

"It hopes that, in the course of redrafting, Plaintiff’s counsel will take a vigorous blue pencil to the original, removing irrelevant material and a substantial proportion of the adjectives. The Court expects that in the redrafted Complaint, if alternative theories are being pursued, the Complaint will make that clear. The Complaint, at a minimum, also needs to indicate which causes of action are being alleged against which defendant or defendants.

RBM - Wow, this section of the judges order hit the nail on the head. Sounds a lot like what we have been hearing from Dina since 2011.

BTW - Thank you Bourne

Is this the case that was dismissed in June?

If the dates are correct, and April 15, 2014 was the deadline to re-draft and re-file, it's been nearly a year. If the complaint was not re-drafted, as directed by the court, how long would it remain "active" without being closed out for lack of activity/ progress? Seems it would be inefficient (and costly to maintain records) to have many cases in the system that have no activity on them.

The complaint itself sounds like it must have been a lot of angry exaggeration and hyperbole. I'm kind of surprised an attorney would write submit something incendiary like that, as they will no doubt have to work within the system in the future. Regardless of how the plaintiffs appear, the attorneys have a reputation to maintain, and need to stay on good terms with the court/ judges. An order like that about the complaint does not make the attorney look competent and professional, IMO. That order reads like a big smack down, IMO. The judge sure didn't try to hide his feelings. What plaintiff or attorney wants to hear that the judge is "bemused" by their complaint, and that they need to take their blue pencil and carve out large swaths, and remove most of the adjectives? Yikes. That's like a bad grade from a teacher on an 8th grade English paper, lol!

At any rate, we can all positively conclude that there are a whole bunch of high priced attorneys who are blessed with ongoing job security because of all the legal actions in these cases!

"the Court is particularly curious about the “rules, regulations and manuals, and generally accepted policies and procedures” that govern parenting" oh my...

*Lash* said:

The judge gave Dina and her representatives until April 15th to submit an amended complaint. IANAL, but it does not appear to be uncommon for a judge to give a plaintiff an opportunity to redraft their complaint? The Zahau's submitted an amended complaint outlining specific allegations in their WDS. Seems to be fair practice.

ETA - are the dates correct, 2014 not 2015?

Click to expand...

BBM

I'm pretty sure it is 2014.

K_Z said:

Is this the case that was dismissed in June?

If the dates are correct, and April 15, 2014 was the deadline to re-draft and re-file, it's been nearly a year. If the complaint was not re-drafted, as directed by the court, how long would it remain "active" without being closed out for lack of activity/ progress? Seems it would be inefficient (and costly to maintain records) to have many cases in the system that have no activity on them.

The complaint itself sounds like it must have been a lot of angry exaggeration and hyperbole. I'm kind of surprised an attorney would write submit something incendiary like that, as they will no doubt have to work within the system in the future. Regardless of how the plaintiffs appear, the attorneys have a reputation to maintain, and need to stay on good terms with the court/ judges. An order like that about the complaint does not make the attorney look competent and professional, IMO. That order reads like a big smack down, IMO. The judge sure didn't try to hide his feelings. What plaintiff or attorney wants to hear that the judge is "bemused" by their complaint, and that they need to take their blue pencil and carve out large swaths, and remove most of the adjectives? Yikes. That's like a bad grade from a teacher on an 8th grade English paper, lol!

At any rate, we can all positively conclude that there are a whole bunch of high priced attorneys who are blessed with ongoing job security because of all the legal actions in these cases!

Click to expand...

This is the case that oral arguments were heard for an order of protection (requested by Jonah) on March 25, 2015.

Page 1

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2013-009289

Page 2

Page 3