Estate of Rebecca Zahau et al v. Shacknai et al

[kittychi]

I'm sure the Zahaus didn't file a WDS for retaliation purposes. That would make it technically frivolous.

I get what your saying though. A trial might help clear suspicions (for all involved). But I have little faith anybody would change their mind no matter how much evidence is shown. I've seen it in other cases. People confirm the evidence that supports their opinion and discount the evidence that does not.

Personally, if my loved ones still had faith and love for me, I'm not sure how motivated I would be to "clear my name".

BBM: Being accused of murdering a child is a legacy the whole family would live with, IMO.

I don't think that is the only reason for the WDS, it just added to the unanswered and unchallenged.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

BBM: Being accused of murdering a child is a legacy the whole family would live with, IMO.

I don't think that is the only reason for the WDS, it just added to the unanswered and unchallenged.

Well, being accused of murdering anyone is a legacy no family wants.

 

[*Lash*]

Well, being accused of murdering anyone is a legacy no family wants.

I definitely agree with you. I cannot imagine how hard it would be for anyone to be accused of murder, including how it must affect their family members. Especially when accusations of murder have been directed towards a deceased woman who cannot speak for herself and her minor sister. Either way, I would want the opportunity to clear my name and my little sisters name. On the same thought, if I was murdered and LE accused me of taking my own life, I would want my family to fight for my legacy. Including holding the responsible parties accountable for my murder.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

I definitely agree with you. I cannot imagine how hard it would be for anyone to be accused of murder, including how it must affect their family members. Especially when accusations of murder have been directed towards a deceased woman who cannot speak for herself and her minor sister. Either way, I would want the opportunity to clear my name and my little sisters name. On the same thought, if I was murdered and LE accused me of taking my own life, I would want my family to fight for my legacy. Including holding the responsible parties accountable for my murder.

And I agree on all counts with you.

No one begrudges a family pursuing the truth about their loved one's death. It's natural to hold suspicions and the family deserves all the answers they need. But, airing those suspicions publicly, without exhausting all other legitimate sources for answers is irresponsible at best.

Sometimes I think Brenner did more harm than good for the Zahaus. Her aggression was more than just a zealous attempt to shine a light on a possible injustice. It was an outright attack on a family that IMO was innocent. One that was enduring the most traumatic events of its life. Combined with newspaper comments and true crime bloggers, it was a gruesome display of insensitivity. I really don't believe that was the Zahaus intended. Everyone wants answers, not a war. And IMO, a self interested lawyer is who started the war.

 

[kittychi]

And I agree on all counts with you.

No one begrudges a family pursuing the truth about their loved one's death. It's natural to hold suspicions and the family deserves all the answers they need. But, airing those suspicions publicly, without exhausting all other legitimate sources for answers is irresponsible at best.

Sometimes I think Brenner did more harm than good for the Zahaus. Her aggression was more than just a zealous attempt to shine a light on a possible injustice. It was an outright attack on a family that IMO was innocent. One that was enduring the most traumatic events of its life. Combined with newspaper comments and true crime bloggers, it was a gruesome display of insensitivity. I really don't believe that was the Zahaus intended. Everyone wants answers, not a war. And IMO, a self interested lawyer is who started the war.

I have to agree about Bremner. Over time in Tweets and Facebook posts she implied that she was seeking justice for Rebecca, filing this, doing that, meeting so and so, blah blah blah, and then nothing. For months, nothing. IMO Rudoy, who was her colleague at the time, had done most of the work from the git-go.

She was likely the liaison with Dr. Phil and Cyril Wecht which brought the case to light, I will give her credit for that. But she came out so aggressively, like things were going to happen, heads were going to roll, etc. IMO she exploited things and then dropped it like a hot potato when she couldn't milk it any more.

I know that seems harsh, but that is the appearance that presents to me.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

I have to agree about Bremner. Over time in Tweets and Facebook posts she implied that she was seeking justice for Rebecca, filing this, doing that, meeting so and so, blah blah blah, and then nothing. For months, nothing. IMO Rudoy, who was her colleague at the time, had done most of the work from the git-go.

She was likely the liaison with Dr. Phil and Cyril Wecht which brought the case to light, I will give her credit for that. But she came out so aggressively, like things were going to happen, heads were going to roll, etc. IMO she exploited things and then dropped it like a hot potato when she couldn't milk it any more.

I know that seems harsh, but that is the appearance that presents to me.

To be fair, you can't squeeze much milk from a hot potato anyway.

I think Bremner owes her fans a little more explanation about what went down for her in this case. I also think she owes some apologies but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Inparadise]

To be fair, you can't squeeze much milk from a hot potato anyway.

I think Bremner owes her fans a little more explanation about what went down for her in this case. I also think she owes some apologies but I'm not holding my breath.

That will never happen. IMO, her reasons for getting involved were self-serving, and the claim of pro-bono is BS!

 

[*Lash*]

And I agree on all counts with you.

No one begrudges a family pursuing the truth about their loved one's death. It's natural to hold suspicions and the family deserves all the answers they need. But, airing those suspicions publicly, without exhausting all other legitimate sources for answers is irresponsible at best.

Sometimes I think Brenner did more harm than good for the Zahaus. Her aggression was more than just a zealous attempt to shine a light on a possible injustice. It was an outright attack on a family that IMO was innocent. One that was enduring the most traumatic events of its life. Combined with newspaper comments and true crime bloggers, it was a gruesome display of insensitivity. I really don't believe that was the Zahaus intended. Everyone wants answers, not a war. And IMO, a self interested lawyer is who started the war.

BBM - Again, I agree with you. I hold much respect for the Zahau family because they NEVER aired their suspicions publicly. Before the WDS, you will not find a single MSM article, radio show or TV show where in the Zahau family accused any particular person of murder. The family respectfully exhausted all sources before filing the WDS. It was only then did the family publicly air their suspicions. The family asked the county once and the AG twice to reopen Rebecca's case with no avail. In my opinion, the family was left with no choice but to file suit against the county of San Diego to obtain all the evidence used to investigate Rebecca's death and request the county return Rebecca's personal property. I respect the Zahau's for how they have carried themselves over the past 2 years.

Respectfully, I cannot say the same for Dina. She publicly accused a dead woman and a minor of murdering her child w/o exhausting all legitimate sources. Dina asked Coronado PD to reopen Maxie's case and addressed the city council. As far as I know she did not make a request to the AG and we know she did not file a WDS. Instead Dina went on a radio station and publicly accused Rebecca and XZ of murdering her son with absolutely nothing to back up her claim. It was irresponsible at best and morally sickening to make such public accusations against a minor. Neither of the 2 accused could defend themselves against Dina's accusations. Dina's profession affords her more of an understanding of how making such a public accusation may affect a teenagers life. Dina obviously decided the consequences of her accusations was worth it. In my opinion, the choice Dina made to publicly accuse a minor of murder speaks volumes about Dina's moral boundaries.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

Lash, maybe the Zahaus didn't say outfight "so and so murdered Rebecca". But it was undeniable that the Shacknais were attacked by Bremner. Her disgusting Facebook posts (that were quickly removed). Jabs about JS hushing up LE. Why do you think they aired AS 911 call then later his polygraph? Because they wanted to show what a cool guy he is? Was Ann Rule accusing another Adam of murder?

No, maybe the Zahaus didn't point their finger directly. But they had plenty of others to do the pointing (for them?)

 

[time]

11 Filed & Entered: 10/30/2013 Motion to Dismiss

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND TO STRIKE PRAYERS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES

Kim Schumann, Esq., State Bar #170942
Stephanie Tran, Esq., State Bar # 228354
Bradley R. Mathews, Esq., SBN: 202055
SCHUMANN | ROSENBERG
3100 Bristol Street, Suite 100
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Attorneys for Defendant,
DINA SHACKNAI



Excerpt

VI. Conclusion

The Court should dismiss the entire action because diversity jurisdiction has not been established. The Court should dismiss the first and second causes of action because the Estate of Rebecca Zahau does not have either Article III standing or statutory standing. The Court should also dismiss the first and second causes of action because no recoverable damages are alleged. Furthermore, the Court should dismiss the wrongful death claim of the Estate of Robert Zahau because it lacks both Article III standing and statutory standing. Finally, all references to prayers for punitive damages should be stricken because there is no viable claim upon which their recovery could be allowed under the law.

 

[K_Z]

Happy Halloween!

Judge Whelan is paying attention to what is filed in this case.

Judge Whelan's response to Dina Shacknai's motion to dismiss. (For some reason, my attachment button is non-functional at the moment, so I'm copying and pasting for now. Will attach pdf from PACER when able.) The documents filed 10-30-13 from Dina's attorneys are rejected by the Judge for discrepancies and errors. Dina's attorneys re-filed 10-31, which I will put in a separate post. I bolded the sections checked in the original document as discrepancies.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO.: 13-cv-1624-W-NLS
CASE TITLE: Estate of Rebecca Zahau et al v. Shacknai et al E-FILED DATE: 10/30/2013

DOCKET NO.: 11 DOCUMENT TITLE: MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and To Strike Prayers for Punitive Damages

DOCUMENT FILED BY: Dina Shacknai
Upon the electronic filing of the above referenced document(s), the following discrepancies are noted:

X Civil Local Rule or Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual provision (“ECF”)
Discrepancy

ECF § 2(h) Includes a proposed order or requires judge’s signature

ECF § 2(a), (g) Docket entry does not accurately reflect the document(s) filed

ECF § 2(g) Multiple pleadings in one docket entry not separated out as attachments

ECF § 2(f) Lacking proper signature

Civ. L. Rule 5.1 Missing time and date on motion and/or supporting documentation

X Civ. L. Rule 7.1 or 47.1 or Crim. L. Rule 47.1
Date noticed for hearing not in compliance with rules/Document(s) are not timely

Civ. L. Rule 7.1 or 47.1 or Crim. L. Rule 47.1
Lacking memorandum of points and authorities in support as a separate document

Civ. L. Rule 7.1 or 47.1 Briefs or memoranda exceed length restrictions

Civ. L. Rule 7.1 Missing table of contents

Civ. L. Rule 15.1 Amended pleading not complete in itself

X OTHER: motion hearing date must be obtained from Judge’s chambers prior to filing

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

The document is accepted despite the discrepancy noted above. Any further non-compliant documents may be stricken from the record.

X The document is rejected. It is ordered that the Clerk STRIKE the document from the record, and serve a copy of this order on all parties. Counsel is advised that any further failure to comply with the Local Rules or Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual may lead to penalties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1.
DATE: October 30, 2013
HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN United States District Court Judge

 

[K_Z]

Document 12 is Dina's initial motion to dismiss.

United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Defendant.
Plaintiff,
Estate of Rebecca Zahau et al
Shacknai et al
V.
Civil No. 13-cv-1624-W-NLS
STRICKEN DOCUMENT:
12
10/30/2013
BY: S. Melvin , Deputy
FILED
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and To Strike Prayers for Punitive Damages; Memorandum of Points and Authorities by Dina Shacknai.

 

[K_Z]

Dina's re-filed motion to dismiss is 13 pages, dated 10/31/13-- I won't copy and paste that much. Hopefully the attachment feature will be working for someone tomorrow.

 

[K_Z]

Judge Whelan's response to Dina Shacknai's motion to dismiss:

View attachment Judge Whelan response to Dina's motion to dismiss.pdf

 

[inthedark14]

Judge Whelan's response to Dina Shacknai's motion to dismiss:

View attachment 38500

Wow. Did AS or NR have any problems with their filings? I would think that DS would be able to have the absolute best attorneys representing her. Doesn't it seem like these errors could have very easily been avoided? Unless of course it was done as a delaying tactic. :dunno:

 

[MaybeNotToday]

Wow. Did AS or NR have any problems with their filings? I would think that DS would be able to have the absolute best attorneys representing her. Doesn't it seem like these errors could have very easily been avoided? Unless of course it was done as a delaying tactic. :dunno:

They do look like easy to fix errors. Just looks like the system kicked it back on clerical things.

 

[time]

Wow. Did AS or NR have any problems with their filings? I would think that DS would be able to have the absolute best attorneys representing her. Doesn't it seem like these errors could have very easily been avoided? Unless of course it was done as a delaying tactic. :dunno:

I was thinking the same.

Also, here is a summary (needs annotated) of the current history.

13-cv-1624-W-NLS

13 Filed & Entered: 10/31/2013 Motion to Dismiss
11 Filed & Entered: 10/30/2013
Terminated: 10/30/2013 Motion to Dismiss
12 Filed: 10/30/2013 Entered: 10/31/2013 Notice of Document Discrepancies (White Discrepancy)
10 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2013 Notice of Appearance
9 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2013 Summons Returned Executed
5 Filed & Entered: 10/15/2013 Notice of Appearance
6 Filed & Entered: 10/15/2013 Notice of Appearance
7 Filed & Entered: 10/15/2013 Notice of Appearance
8 Filed & Entered: 10/15/2013 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
4 Filed & Entered: 10/10/2013 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
3 Filed & Entered: 10/01/2013 Affidavit of Service
1 Filed & Entered: 07/12/2013 Complaint
2 Filed & Entered: 07/12/2013 Summons Issued

 

[time]

They do look like easy to fix errors. Just looks like the system kicked it back on clerical things.

I don't think some of these are just clerical errors, but I could be wrong.

" Civ. L. Rule 7.1 or 47.1 Briefs or memoranda exceed length restrictions"

Most cases I have been familiar with, the attorneys always know and abide by these restrictions or first submit for something like "an oversized brief" to be okayed. They do not submit them first and wait to be told they are oversized.

 

[time]

I don't think some of these are just clerical errors, but I could be wrong.

" Civ. L. Rule 7.1 or 47.1 Briefs or memoranda exceed length restrictions"

Most cases I have been familiar with, the attorneys always know and abide by these restrictions or first submit for something like "an oversized brief" to be okayed. They do not submit them first and wait to be told they are oversized.

This looks like it pertains to some of the points (http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/uploads/Rules/Local Rules/LocalRules.pdf)

h. Length of Brief in Support of or in Opposition to Motions. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for the same motion day must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length for all such motions without leave of the judge who will hear the motion. No reply memorandum will exceed ten (10) pages without leave of the judge. Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length must have a table of contents and a table of authorities cited.
​

 

[K_Z]

Judge Whelan's response to Dina Shacknai's motion to dismiss:

View attachment 38500

If you look closely at the document, I think it is a standard list of discrepancies. the far left column contains three "x" checkboxes-- I think there was only a discrepancy about the date that was not cleared with the Judge's office. I don't think each point on the list pertains to the order to strike.

I'm actually curious why the whole motion had to be stricken and resubmitted if only a date was in dispute? Perhaps it is routine to strike and re-file. Anyway, Dina's attorneys were imminently ready to re-file, and did so promptly.

I'm having trouble posting the 13 page re-filed motion to dismiss as a PDF, but will try some additional things to see if I can post it. If someone else is able, please do!