IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #8

[In vino veritas]

I haven’t seen any updates about a scheduled date for SA’s plea hearing.

What would be the typical timing on a hearing once a person changes his plea?

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

Re: the drinking

Was talking with a psych nurse friend. She told me a proper admission assessment not only includes asking the patient if he/she drinks and, if answered yes, following up with asking how many and what size drinks. She said she had had more than one patient answer one drink a day but that one drink was an entire fifth of liquor.

Just throwing that out. Not alleging anything in this situation. Just sharing this little tidbit of nursing wisdom from my friend.

 

[Wehwalt]

I haven’t seen any updates about a scheduled date for SA’s plea hearing.

What would be the typical timing on a hearing once a person changes his plea?

Hard to say. Probably has more to do with scheduling for lawyers and the court than anything else.

 

[Laria Rivera]

Hard to say. Probably has more to do with scheduling for lawyers and the court than anything else.

It’s on March 19th.
It’s on the courts website if you search for the case it will show the date.

Portal de la Rama Judicial

The case number is KVI2019M0003

 

[In vino veritas]

It’s on March 19th.
It’s on the courts website if you search for the case it will show the date.

Portal de la Rama Judicial

The case number is KVI2019M0003

Muchas gracias Laria Rivera!

 

[In vino veritas]

And I do hope the judge does NOT concede to the existing plea deal. I do hope she puts SA on the hot seat and makes admission of facts one of the conditions of the deal.

Perhaps, also, a stricter probation sentence. But maybe I’m hoping for too much. I just firmly believe that at this point, SA needs to make more serious restitution for his gross negligence. IMO, all his lies, misdirections, refusal to acknowledge his fault, and the absence of visible remorse REQUIRE it.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

And I do hope the judge does NOT concede to the existing plea deal. I do hope she puts SA on the hot seat and makes admission of facts one of the conditions of the deal.

Perhaps, also, a stricter probation sentence. But maybe I’m hoping for too much. I just firmly believe that at this point, SA needs to make more serious restitution for his gross negligence. IMO, all his lies, misdirections, refusal to acknowledge his fault, and the absence of visible remorse REQUIRE it.

I tend to be a glass half full guy, so I'm assuming he's going to get off very easy. All of us here are far more invested in this than the judge will be. Which makes me think the judge is just going to run through the motions, and wrap up the case in an expeditious manner. I never really expected SA to get a punishment of any significance, unless perhaps he had gone through with the trial. I'm honestly more concerned as to any impact this case will have on the suit against RCCL. If SA gets off scot free, I will be furious if the family sees 1 Dime from their joke of a suit.

 

[Kindred]

NEW DOCUMENT

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTIONCase 1:19-cv-25100-DLG
Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2020 14 Pages

32 - RCCL Response 3-4.pdf

I'm just going to put my favorite part right here:

"The Court should summarily deny Plaintiffs’ improper request for leave to amend embedded in the Response because they fail to attach a proposed pleading or point to any evidence showing that amendment would not be futile because of the lack of notice."

The status conference is next Wednesday morning. Unless the judge decides to toss all this before then that's probably when we'll get an answer if this dog and pony show is going to be continuing or if it's getting shut down.

 

[they'll get you]

NEW DOCUMENT

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTIONCase 1:19-cv-25100-DLG
Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2020 14 Pages

32 - RCCL Response 3-4.pdf

I'm just going to put my favorite part right here:

"The Court should summarily deny Plaintiffs’ improper request for leave to amend embedded in the Response because they fail to attach a proposed pleading or point to any evidence showing that amendment would not be futile because of the lack of notice."

The status conference is next Wednesday morning. Unless the judge decides to toss all this before then that's probably when we'll get an answer if this dog and pony show is going to be continuing or if it's getting shut down.

Kindred you are GOLD!

 

[Kindred]

I am but a humble servant

 

[Lambseatoats]

It is hard to tell, the only time I can really see pretty clearly what's going on is when I watch the video on a 12 inch laptop monitor. When I try to watch it full screen on a big monitor it's very blurry. But to me it seemed like he was trying to take a picture. It just really aggravates me that he is totally lying about the entire event. In his tv interview the interviewer basically asked him leading questions that he had CW in a "bear hug" which is completely false since at the time she fell he was only holding her with one hand. I would really love to be a fly on the wall in the houses of the other grandparents I can't imagine they are supporting him the way CW's parents are, imo. There is something very off about this guy.

I watched it on a 12 inch laptop and I thought it was pretty clear that at the very least, he held her with his left arm only. I think I saw his right arm move forward and the hand shows up between his head and Chloe. If he did have a phone in his right hand, then I wouldn't expect him to drop it as some suggest - he was most likely focused on the phone and dropped Chloe, not both. Probably a perfect storm of impairment of judgment from alcohol or something, a negligent style of babysitting, and then distracted by phone activity like a text or call. The refusal to submit to drug/alcohol testing is very telling, IMO

 

[Kindred]

From page 9 of the newest doc:

"The Complaint fails to allege that a passenger has ever done what Mr. Anello did. This is because any reasonable person would have 1) not placed an 18-month old child where he did, and 2) would have perceived with their ordinary senses that the window, open to the outside light, noise and air, was open."

"An open window is obvious, the danger of falling out of it is obvious, the danger of picking up an 18-month old child and placing her almost four feet above the deck of a ship and beyond a railing is obvious, the danger of losing grip of an 18-month old child in such a position is obvious. Resolution of these points is appropriate on the MTD, and they demonstrate why the Complaint should be dismissed."

Say it louder for the people in Indiana!

 

[neesaki]

Gosh, IDK....

From page 9 of the newest doc:

"The Complaint fails to allege that a passenger has ever done what Mr. Anello did. This is because any reasonable person would have 1) not placed an 18-month old child where he did, and 2) would have perceived with their ordinary senses that the window, open to the outside light, noise and air, was open."

"An open window is obvious, the danger of falling out of it is obvious, the danger of picking up an 18-month old child and placing her almost four feet above the deck of a ship and beyond a railing is obvious, the danger of losing grip of an 18-month old child in such a position is obvious. Resolution of these points is appropriate on the MTD, and they demonstrate why the Complaint should be dismissed."

Say it louder for the people in Indiana!

Well put, RCCL. Thanks so much, Kindred, you’re the best!

 

[JerseySleuth17]

I watched it on a 12 inch laptop and I thought it was pretty clear that at the very least, he held her with his left arm only. I think I saw his right arm move forward and the hand shows up between his head and Chloe. If he did have a phone in his right hand, then I wouldn't expect him to drop it as some suggest - he was most likely focused on the phone and dropped Chloe, not both. Probably a perfect storm of impairment of judgment from alcohol or something, a negligent style of babysitting, and then distracted by phone activity like a text or call. The refusal to submit to drug/alcohol testing is very telling, IMO

This is a FAR cry from the "bear hug" grip he claims he had on CW and "if only a sticker had told him the window was open" nonsense. If I was the family and I saw that video, my lawsuit would be against SA and not the cruise line. CW is poised in front of an OPEN window 11 stories up and gramps is holding her by only one hand, and then he let's her go. Imo it was either intentional or such a gross lapse of judgment either way I would not be defending him on national tv and blaming lack of stickers for his behavior.

 

[oviedo]

Do ya think the window is open?
Look at this woman’s ponytail !!

I agree with you MommyStephV.

View attachment 235594

I also saw a man standing on a deck chair looking out and I took the opportunity to (friendly) suggest it was a bit dangerous. He smiled and then stepped off.
The window sill was at his waistline.

I’m heading out next week and am sure I will be watching deck 11 behavior

 

[oviedo]

I see some things were filed on February 26 in the case but haven’t seen them addressed here. Did I miss it? Does anyone know what was filed?

Wiegand et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (1:19-cv-25100), Florida Southern District Court

IN-Grandfather charged cruise ship death of Chloe Wiegand MEDIA TIMELINE NO DISCUSSION
Posted in the media thread

 

[Hoosgirl]

NEW DOCUMENT

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTIONCase 1:19-cv-25100-DLG
Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2020 14 Pages

32 - RCCL Response 3-4.pdf

I'm just going to put my favorite part right here:

"The Court should summarily deny Plaintiffs’ improper request for leave to amend embedded in the Response because they fail to attach a proposed pleading or point to any evidence showing that amendment would not be futile because of the lack of notice."

The status conference is next Wednesday morning. Unless the judge decides to toss all this before then that's probably when we'll get an answer if this dog and pony show is going to be continuing or if it's getting shut down.

I'm with you @Kindred and might I add this zinger they included at the end:

The Court should summarily deny Plaintiffs’ improper request for leave to amend embedded in the Response because they fail to attach a proposed pleading or point to any evidence showing that amendment would not be futile because of the lack of notice. See Avena v. Imperial Salon & Spa, Inc., 740 F. App’x 679, 683 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding plaintiff’s request for leave to amend “was improper because it neither contained a proposed amendment, nor did it elaborate on the substance of the proposed amendment.”);Rosenberg v. Gould, 554 F.3d 962, 967 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[w]here a request for leave to file an amended complaint simply is imbedded within an opposition memorandum, the issue has not been raised properly.”); Zhang v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 19-20773, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199362 at *32 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2019) (denying the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, which was improperly embedded in their response to the motion to dismiss and unaccompanied by the substance of the proposed amendment) (citing Avena, 740 F. App’x at 683). Notably, the Zhang plaintiff was represented by the same law firm representing Plaintiffs here.

 

[In vino veritas]

NEW DOCUMENT

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTIONCase 1:19-cv-25100-DLG
Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2020 14 Pages

32 - RCCL Response 3-4.pdf

I'm just going to put my favorite part right here:

"The Court should summarily deny Plaintiffs’ improper request for leave to amend embedded in the Response because they fail to attach a proposed pleading or point to any evidence showing that amendment would not be futile because of the lack of notice."

The status conference is next Wednesday morning. Unless the judge decides to toss all this before then that's probably when we'll get an answer if this dog and pony show is going to be continuing or if it's getting shut down.

Thank you again Kindred. I just finished reading RCL’s most recent response.
The attorneys , again, so succinctly argued all the relevant reasons why this travesty should be dismissed.
It will be very interesting to see if this case is, in fact, dismissed and if so, will it be dismissed prior to the status conference on the 11th.
IMO, it would be a waste of more taxpayer dollars to allow this case to proceed.... even to the discovery stage. What possible discovery could the plaintiffs present other than absurdly inaccurate reconstruction photos, especially when compared to a HD video viewed on proprietary software showing SA committing his egregiously negligent act??

 

[mheido67]

I watched it on a 12 inch laptop and I thought it was pretty clear that at the very least, he held her with his left arm only. I think I saw his right arm move forward and the hand shows up between his head and Chloe. If he did have a phone in his right hand, then I wouldn't expect him to drop it as some suggest - he was most likely focused on the phone and dropped Chloe, not both. Probably a perfect storm of impairment of judgment from alcohol or something, a negligent style of babysitting, and then distracted by phone activity like a text or call. The refusal to submit to drug/alcohol testing is very telling, IMO

SA's hand moving forward is consistent with his claim to have been reaching forward for the glass. The fact that he was, at that point, holding CW with only his left arm in not indispute. He admitted this in his interview with DB and made a motion where he positioned his left arm as if holding CW against his body while reaching forward with his right. Although DB incorrectly referred to this as having CW in a "bear hug" which it clearly was not.

My (won't speak for others) referring to SA likely dropping a phone, had he been holding one at the time CW fell, was meant as after the fact. I doubt, realizing he had dropped CW to her death and himself falling to the deck, that he would have remained holding the phone. In which case it would have been somewhere on the deck in close proximity to SA. JMO.

 

[neesaki]

This is a FAR cry from the "bear hug" grip he claims he had on CW and "if only a sticker had told him the window was open" nonsense. If I was the family and I saw that video, my lawsuit would be against SA and not the cruise line. CW is poised in front of an OPEN window 11 stories up and gramps is holding her by only one hand, and then he let's her go. Imo it was either intentional or such a gross lapse of judgment either way I would not be defending him on national tv and blaming lack of stickers for his behavior.

ITA, I’d be ready to throw him under the jail.