Estate of Rebecca Zahau et al v. Shacknai et al

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Carioca said:
Thanks K_Z. Do you (or anyone) understand what is being said in this filing? TIA
Click to expand...

I had some questions about that myself, so I asked a close family member who is an attorney. (This person is not verified at WS, so feel free to disregard if you choose.)

The wording of this is a bit awkward, but I think I can decipher it (although it would be helpful to look at the docket to confirm my thoughts).

We'll start with the basics: for every motion before the court, there is the initial motion by the moving party, a response (or sometimes called an opposition) by the opposing party, and then a reply by the moving party (think of it as if you make the motion you get the last word). [Note: in some courts the moving party gets a reply as of right, in some you have to ask permission (called leave of court) to file a reply--so you may not always see a reply. It depends on the local rules of court.] [A second note, if the opposing party then files something after your reply, that is called a surreply. It is pretty much always impermissible in federal court to file a surreply without requesting leave of court. Lawyers could go back and forth responding to each other all day and the judges don't want to hear it.] Anyway, back to the issue at hand.

It appears to me that the defendant Nina Romano filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, either in whole or in part, or alternatively requested that the court require the plaintiff to issue a more definite statement clarifying the claims (essentially file a better complaint because it is as clear as mud), as well as asking the court to strike some thing or things in the complaint that are impermissible. It appears that the plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to this motion. In general, if you do not oppose a motion, you are conceding it. Thus, it appears that the defendant filed a "reply" arguing that because the plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to their motion, the court should deem in conceded, and issue the proposed order attached to the reply granting the defendant's motion.

I would not have termed it a reply because if the plaintiff failed to respond, you are not really replying to anything. I probably would have just filed an advisory with the court. It's not wrong to call it a reply, it just creates the very awkward wording, especially when you couple it with the follow-on wording of "No timely opposition." They should have just called it a "Reply in Support of Defendant Romano's Motion to Dismiss, For a More Definite Statement, and to Strike."

Hopefully that explains it a bit.
Click to expand...
 
K_Z, Thank you and please extend many thanks and much appreciation to your close family member who was kind enough to take the time to translate the legalese for us.
 
Well, things sure are not looking real good. Attorneys Rudoy and Fleck appear not to have followed through with the county suit. Now we have the Zahau's new attorneys not responding to Nina's motion to dismiss in the WDS. In my opinion, either a back door settlement has been reached or funds are lacking to continue both suits. I thought Rudoy was pro bono? Something is amiss. I can't help to think Rebecca would feel let down.
 
*Lash* said:
Well, things sure are not looking real good. Attorneys Rudoy and Fleck appear not to have followed through with the county suit. Now we have the Zahau's new attorneys not responding to Nina's motion to dismiss in the WDS. In my opinion, either a back door settlement has been reached or funds are lacking to continue both suits. I thought Rudoy was pro bono? Something is amiss. I can't help to think Rebecca would feel let down.
Click to expand...

BBM

Yes, indeed, the lack of donations as DeDee or someone else pointed out...

Sad.
 
STS-135 said:
BBM

Yes, indeed, the lack of donations as DeDee or someone else pointed out...

Sad.
Click to expand...

We have no idea how much money was received via donations. We do know private donations were made, therefore the $5,438 figure showing on Indiegogo is not exactly accurate. I am bringing this up because I don't necessarily believe the lack of funding is the reason the suits do not appear to be moving forward. What I am questioning is the objective of the attorneys involved, not the families focus. I am concerned the Zahau's may have turned down a settlement offer which likely did not please their attorneys. When I suggested money may have trumped justice, I was referring to the attorneys not the Zahau family. I hope I am wrong and the attorneys are still working on both cases. The attorneys involved have an opportunity to use their profession to right a wrong and prove Rebecca was murdered. If there is a contingency contract the attorneys will receive their fees when the case is won. I do believe Rebecca's case can be won and proving she was murdered can be ascertained in the WDS. In my opinion, the attorneys are questioning whether they want to roll the dice. Hence the reason I asked has money trumped justice. To be fair, I have no idea how much evidence the attorneys have to support the WDS. What I do know, attorney Fleck (while standing next to Snowem and Rudoy) was very convinced 2 people should have been charged with murder.
 
*Lash* said:
We have no idea how much money was received via donations. We do know private donations were made, therefore the $5,438 figure showing on Indiegogo is not exactly accurate. I am bringing this up because I don't necessarily believe the lack of funding is the reason the suits do not appear to be moving forward. What I am questioning is the objective of the attorneys involved, not the families focus. I am concerned the Zahau's may have turned down a settlement offer which likely did not please their attorneys. When I suggested money may have trumped justice, I was referring to the attorneys not the Zahau family. I hope I am wrong and the attorneys are still working on both cases. The attorneys involved have an opportunity to use their profession to right a wrong and prove Rebecca was murdered. If there is a contingency contract the attorneys will receive their fees when the case is won. I do believe Rebecca's case can be won and proving she was murdered can be ascertained in the WDS. In my opinion, the attorneys are questioning whether they want to roll the dice. Hence the reason I asked has money trumped justice. To be fair, I have no idea how much evidence the attorneys have to support the WDS. What I do know, attorney Fleck (while standing next to Snowem and Rudoy) was very convinced 2 people should have been charged with murder.
Click to expand...

The rights to the story could net a windfall. There is always that sort of payment. Considering that this case had worldwide interest, I have no doubt that both a book and a movie could come of it.
 
*Lash* said:
Which reminds me what happened to the book, Mystery Deaths at the Spreckels Mansion, by author Gary King. What is taking so long, maybe a cease and desist?

https://www.facebook.com/truecrimeking
Click to expand...

I doubt that is it, but who knows:

Oct 3, 2013

Many of you who follow me on Facebook and Twitter already know that I am working on a nonfiction "short" that I'm calling "Mystery Deaths at the Spreckels Mansion," about the mysterious circumstances surrounding the deaths of Rebecca Zahau and Max Shacknai. I'm referring to it as a nonfiction piece because I cannot label it true crime due to the official determinations that Rebecca's death was suicide and little Max's death an accident. Nonetheless, many readers recognize it as a gripping case, one that is worthy of additional investigation to gain further insight and answers as to what happened here. As readers will see when I release the eBook short, there is a definite need to reopen the investigation surrounding these two deaths.
Click to expand...
http://www.truecrimeking.com/#!New-Book-in-the-Works/cvtp/4BAB0028-760D-4CB2-80EF-2229D3B857CA

He could be waiting for the right moment to release it hoping it gets more publicity? Or waiting to see what comes out of recent court actions? Seems like a long time for a short story.
 
Time - You're likely correct. The reason I mentioned a cease and desist was because of a post the author made on Sept. 10th. I no longer see the post. Just curious what the unforeseen circumstances may have been? The author appears to have been releasing and writing others books during the same time period.

Sept. 12th -

Update on my nonfiction "short," Mystery Deaths at the Spreckels Mansion. Needless to say, this has taken me longer to finish than I had originally anticipated, but I am racing toward the finish line. My apologies for jumping the gun and announcing that it would be available sooner than I have been able to produce it, but due to circumstances I hadn't foreseen it has taken me much longer to finish than I had planned. I will announce here when it is available, which shouldn't be too much longer! Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
Adam Shacknai motion to dismiss 11/8/13: (3 pages)

View attachment Adam motion to dismiss 11-8-13.pdf

On October 15, 2013, defendant Adam Shacknai moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs’ counsel was required to file an opposition to the motion “not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing”—i.e., November 4, 2013. See CivLR 7.1.e.2. To date, no opposition has been filed. Any amendment to the Complaint was required to be filed not later than 21 days after the filing of the motion to dismiss—i.e., November 5, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. No amended complaint has been filed. The Court’s civil Chamber Rules provide that “[a]n opposing party’s failure to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion will be construed as consent to the granting of the motion.” Hon. Thomas J. Whelan Civ. Chamber Rules at 2. Plaintiffs’ failure to file an opposition to Mr. Shacknai’s motion to dismiss should be construed as consent to the granting of the motion. Accordingly, defendant Adam Shacknai respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for the reasons set forth in the motion.
Click to expand...
 
*Lash* said:
Time - You're likely correct. The reason I mentioned a cease and desist was because of a post the author made on Sept. 10th. I no longer see the post. Just curious what the unforeseen circumstances may have been? The author appears to have been releasing and writing others books during the same time period.
Click to expand...

It is curious that it keeps being delayed.
 
Filed today: 11/11/13 :)
Amended complaint, Estate of Rebecca Zahau (9 pages)

View attachment Estate of RZ amended 11-11-13.pdf

:)

(Note- now that I look at it more closely, that may not be the best title for this document, but it's close enough for discussion here, IMO. It's an amended complaint by the authorized plaintiffs, which may or may not be the actual and legal "estate of RZ", FWIW!)
 
Interesting comments in the notice of filing amended complaint above. I don't know what the law prescribes in this circumstance. The plaintiffs state that of the 3 named defendants, the 3rd to respond (Dina Shacknai) responded on "the day before the 21st day" that the FIRST defendant responded, and question whether the "21 days" begins with the FIRST defendant to respond, or the last. That's an interesting question, when a party is asking to dismiss the whole case. Potentially interesting strategy on the part of the defendants, I suppose.

6. On the day before the 21 day period was about to expire on the first filed motion to dismiss, Dina Shacknai filed her motion on October 31, 2013. Therefore, if the 21 day period was based on the first filed motion, Plaintiffs would not have had time to fully analyze the issues raised in the last filed motion.
Click to expand...
 
Yikes. "Lawyerspeak" makes my teeth itch.
:croc:

(excuse me.)
 
K_Z said:
Interesting comments in the notice of filing amended complaint above. I don't know what the law prescribes in this circumstance. The plaintiffs state that of the 3 named defendants, the 3rd to respond (Dina Shacknai) responded on "the day before the 21st day" that the FIRST defendant responded, and question whether the "21 days" begins with the FIRST defendant to respond, or the last. That's an interesting question, when a party is asking to dismiss the whole case. Potentially interesting strategy on the part of the defendants, I suppose.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but it sure makes sense. I agree and definitely can see this being used as a defense strategy. How the heck can the plaintiffs attorneys respond if a defendant hasn't responded or waits until almost the last day to respond. For goodness sake the judge dismissed Dina's first motion and she had to refile. In my opinion, the 21 days should start once the last defendant responds. Maybe the court expects the plaintiffs to respond separately to each of the named defendants motions?
 
*Lash* said:
General Allegations/SOF page 4

12. On or around the morning of July 13, 2011, Defendants ADAM, DINA, and NINA, and each of them, conspired to plan, and did in fact murder REBECCA ZAHAU in Coronando, California.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38773&d=1384237874
Click to expand...
Well, that's plainly said, isn't it?


My sincere thanks to all of you who do such a good job of translating legalese into (relative) sense for the rest of us...you rock! :rocker:
 
Second Cause of Action, page 6, items 26-30 -

In my opinion, in number 30 the plaintiffs are definitely alleging premeditated murder was committed by ALL 3 defendants. If I am understanding correctly number 27, it appears Rebecca was aware the defendants were about to carry out their threats. Did someone warn Rebecca that the defendants planned to murder her? Anyone have an opinion on number 27?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 209 more.
Total: 2,315 (members: 210, guests: 2,105)

Online statistics

Members online
210
Guests online
2,105
Total visitors
2,315
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,700
Messages
18,098,284
Members
230,902
Latest member
heartishome
Back
Top