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

[LuckyLucy2]

The page that has been shown as "proof" that the Zahaus requested the Civil Case THEY brought against San Diego County is VERY misleading.

I went to look at the court docket, and what I found was that the case was INDEED dismissed with PREJUDICE by the COURT .

What Carioca posted were the MINUTES of the DISMISSAL meeting on 12/6/13.

Instead of showing up to the scheduled WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED to FIGHT the DISMISSAL, it looks like the Zahaus just sent a lawyer, and AGREED to the JUDGE'S ORDER of DISMISSAL WITH PREDJUDICE.

 

[screecher]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY to the innocent child Rebecca who has found peace in heaven, and will soon see justice done on earth in the courts on her behalf

Had she been born yesterday, it'd have been Happy PI day too! :cupcake:arty:

BBM

I am also very, very hopeful justice will be done !!!

 

[Betty P]

The page that has been shown as "proof" that the Zahaus requested the Civil Case THEY brought against San Diego County is VERY misleading.

I went to look at the court docket, and what I found was that the case was INDEED dismissed with PREJUDICE by the COURT .

What Carioca posted were the MINUTES of the DISMISSAL meeting on 12/6/13.

Instead of showing up to the scheduled WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED to FIGHT the DISMISSAL, it looks like the Zahaus just sent a lawyer, and AGREED to the JUDGE'S ORDER of DISMISSAL WITH PREDJUDICE.

View attachment 71171

Its fairly common knowledge that the Zahaus are, like most of us, working class people without vast financial resources to pursue multiple lawsuits. While I give them credit for tfying to hold the SDSO accountable to conduct a full and fair investigation, local politics were not in their favor.

The list of missing person/death investigations they've bungled is quite extensive and growing. At some point in the not too distant future, things will reach a tipping point and the public and/or outside agencies will have to take action to clean up the mess.

IANAL and Im certainly no insider, but their decision not to pursue the case further was likely to focus on using the discovery process in the WDS to compel SDSO to release evidence about the case. Msybe italso setved to force them to preserve any evidence that hasn't been destroyed.

MOO

 

[bourne]

Its fairly common knowledge that the Zahaus are, like most of us, working class people without vast financial resources to pursue multiple lawsuits. While I give them credit for tfying to hold the SDSO accountable to conduct a full and fair investigation, local politics were not in their favor.

The list of missing person/death investigations they've bungled is quite extensive and growing. At some point in the not too distant future, things will reach a tipping point and the public and/or outside agencies will have to take action to clean up the mess.

IANAL and Im certainly no insider, but their decision not to pursue the case further was likely to focus on using the discovery process in the WDS to compel SDSO to release evidence about the case. Msybe italso setved to force them to preserve any evidence that hasn't been destroyed.

MOO

I agree. What you and Carioca said above makes perfect cogent sense re: why Zahaus hired another lawyer to get the case against SDSO dismissed.

The sequence of events was entered incorrectly and is irrelevant. We've seen mistakes in sequencing of dockets in this and other cases before. Either way, the Judge HEARD the Zahau lawyer's case PRIOR to ruling. That's how it works. The judge doesn't dismiss a case, then hear arguments. That's illogical. Once a case is dismissed, the Judge doesn't reconvene with the relevant parties to discuss things. GMAB.

No reason to waste resources for one when Zahaus had filed TWO WDS in both the state and federal courts and as you said, they're NOT wealthy, and second and more significantly, because there was no more need to compel SDSO to provide the physical evidence as Kamala Harris already pushed SDSO to provide the necessary physical evidence (e.g., full version of 911 call made by Adam including the missing 8 secs, Rebecca's phone, etc).

Looking forward to more depositions in the works and the upcoming trial We pro-Zahau :websleuther: rock! Happy St Patty Day! :lepsmilie:

 

[*Lash*]

FYI - AZLawyer has responded to several of our questions in the lawyer thread She posted the new case involving the affidavit from Mrs. Luber is a NEW complaint. She included some additional info. I'm sure many of us would like to see the complaint. Any ideas on how it could be obtained?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-for-VERIFIED-LAWYERS&p=11595151#post11595151

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Looks like Jonah just doesn't want to answer Dina's questions:

An order of protection in a Civil Case is:

PROTECTIVE ORDER

In litigation, an order that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain conditions.

A protective order is commonly used to protect a party or witness from unreasonable or invasive discovery requests (for example, harassing questions in a deposition, or an unnecessary medical examination).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p103.htm

 

[justice be served]

FYI - AZLawyer has responded to several of our questions in the lawyer thread She posted the new case involving the affidavit from Mrs. Luber is a NEW complaint. She included some additional info. I'm sure many of us would like to see the complaint. Any ideas on how it could be obtained?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-for-VERIFIED-LAWYERS&p=11595151#post11595151

In Maricopa County, you can sign up and log on to review court proceedings/documents. However, the system will deny your viewing of the documents unless you are a registered Plaintiff, Defendant or attorney of record on the case, unfortunately.

 

[bourne]

In Maricopa County, you can sign up and log on to review court proceedings/documents. However, the system will deny your viewing of the documents unless you are a registered Plaintiff, Defendant or attorney of record on the case, unfortunately.

What happened to Freedom of Information Act? Does that not apply here?

 

[justice be served]

What happened to Freedom of Information Act? Does that not apply here?

I don't think it applies to state agencies/courts.

 

[bourne]

I don't think it applies to state agencies/courts.

I just looked this up on Government's Justice System website. That appears to be incorrect info.

"Despite repeated admonitions from the courts that "[t]he primary purpose of the FOIA was not to benefit private litigants or to serve as a substitute for civil discovery," Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 360 n.14 (1982), see also Miller v. Bell, 661 F. 2d 623, 626 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 960 (1982), and that the FOIA was not "intended to serve as a substitute for criminal discovery," United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, 717 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1983), there simply exists no statutory or other legal prohibition against using the FOIA to supplement civil, criminal or administrative discovery in pending cases. See also FOIA Update, Dec. 1981, at 10."

http://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-foia-counselor-questions-answers-13

 

[justice be served]

I just looked this up on Government's Justice System website. That appears to be incorrect info.

"Despite repeated admonitions from the courts that "[t]he primary purpose of the FOIA was not to benefit private litigants or to serve as a substitute for civil discovery," Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 360 n.14 (1982), see also Miller v. Bell, 661 F. 2d 623, 626 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 960 (1982), and that the FOIA was not "intended to serve as a substitute for criminal discovery," United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, 717 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1983), there simply exists no statutory or other legal prohibition against using the FOIA to supplement civil, criminal or administrative discovery in pending cases. See also FOIA Update, Dec. 1981, at 10."

http://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-foia-counselor-questions-answers-13

Thanks, that's great to know. Now go for it! Frankly I would never have my name within shouting distance of these defendants or their immediate relatives/friends so I won't be doing it. They scare me. I am guessing the request is also public information and it just may be that someone (eeks) is monitoring same. Be careful.

 

[screecher]

I just looked this up on Government's Justice System website. That appears to be incorrect info.

"Despite repeated admonitions from the courts that "[t]he primary purpose of the FOIA was not to benefit private litigants or to serve as a substitute for civil discovery," Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 360 n.14 (1982), see also Miller v. Bell, 661 F. 2d 623, 626 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 960 (1982), and that the FOIA was not "intended to serve as a substitute for criminal discovery," United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, 717 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1983), there simply exists no statutory or other legal prohibition against using the FOIA to supplement civil, criminal or administrative discovery in pending cases. See also FOIA Update, Dec. 1981, at 10."

http://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-foia-counselor-questions-answers-13

Soo, what exactly does that mean in laypersons terms? lol

 

[screecher]

Thanks, that's great to know. Now go for it! Frankly I would never have my name within shouting distance of these defendants or their immediate relatives/friends so I won't be doing it. They scare me. I am guessing the request is also public information and it just may be that someone (eeks) is monitoring same. Be careful.

Absolutely. Scary people.

 

[bourne]

Soo, what exactly does that mean in laypersons terms? lol

I think it just means that under the law, the FOIA also applies to civil and other cases. So it's ok to request legal docs in this case too. AZLawyer gave a link in legal thread re: how to request the new complaint

 

[bourne]

Thanks, that's great to know. Now go for it! Frankly I would never have my name within shouting distance of these defendants or their immediate relatives/friends so I won't be doing it. They scare me. I am guessing the request is also public information and it just may be that someone (eeks) is monitoring same. Be careful.

Agreed. Someone told me they'd try to get the affidavit

 

[screecher]

Looks like Jonah just doesn't want to answer Dina's questions:

An order of protection in a Civil Case is:

PROTECTIVE ORDER

In litigation, an order that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain conditions.

A protective order is commonly used to protect a party or witness from unreasonable or invasive discovery requests (for example, harassing questions in a deposition, or an unnecessary medical examination).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p103.htm

underlined by me

Why would he? Redundant, harassing and 100 times over. Jeez. judge will let BDina know ;-)

 

[bourne]

AZLawyer also stated that in new complaint filed by Zahau plaintiffs, they are represented by a high-power AZ lawyer named Patricia Refo from high-power firm (Snell & Wilmer)!

This suggests someone wealthy (Jonah?) may be donating mucho funds to the Zahaus for their WDS and/or high-power lawyers believe Rebecca was heinously and unjustifiably murdered and are volunteering their time/money to the Zahaus. Either way, WOOHOO!

Justice for Rebecca Zahau!

 

[*Lash*]

Looks like Jonah just doesn't want to answer Dina's questions:

An order of protection in a Civil Case is:

PROTECTIVE ORDER

In litigation, an order that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain conditions.

A protective order is commonly used to protect a party or witness from unreasonable or invasive discovery requests (for example, harassing questions in a deposition, or an unnecessary medical examination).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p103.htm

I agree with you on the reason for this protective order. I don't believe it is the same as requesting a restraining order for protection. It is likely the same type of motion the Zahau's filed in the their WDS against Dina. It would appear Dina's attorneys have a pattern or strategy regarding unreasonable or invasive discovery requests.

 

[*Lash*]

Attorney Patricia Lee Refo

Trish Refo's practice is concentrated in complex commercial litigation and internal investigations, with extensive experience in financial institutions litigation, professional malpractice defense, class actions, trade secret litigation, and commercial and business torts. She chairs the firm's Professional Liability Litigation group. Trish is a frequent speaker at international, national, state and local continuing legal education conferences, including annual meetings of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Bar Association, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the CPR Center for Dispute Resolution, the Sedona Conference, the Judicial Conferences of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the Western States Bar Conference and various state bar conventions. She presently serves as chair of the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association.

Professional Recognition and Awards

• The Best Lawyers in America®, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants (2003-2015); Corporate Law (2003-2013)
  • Lawyer of the Year, Phoenix Legal Malpractice Law (2012)
• Southwest Super Lawyers®, Business Litigation (2007-2014)
• Who's Who Legal, Commercial Litigation (2008-2014)
• Ranking Arizona: The Best of Arizona Attorneys, Commercial Litigation (2010-2011)
• Arizona's Top Lawyers, Commercial Litigation, AzBusiness Magazine (2010, 2014)
• Lawdragon Top 3000 Leading Lawyers in America (2010-2011)
• President's Award, State Bar of Arizona (2014)
• ABA Jury System Impact Award (2009)
• The 50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America, The National Law Journal (May 2007)
• Distinguished Achievement Award, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University (2007)
• William Reese Smith Jr. Distinguished Lecturer in Litigation Ethics, Stetson Law School (2006)

http://www.swlaw.com/attorneys/trish_refo

 

[MyBelle]

This is not a criminal trial. This is a CIVIL trial for $10 Million dollars in "damages". It is ALL about money.

Yes. I also think some are forgetting that both LE and Dina have access to Max's medical records and the notes will indicate who was with him at all times in the ICU. I do wonder if Jonah has paid the family money to leave him out of the lawsuit. His absence from it is a large elephant.

JMO