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

[*Lash*]

Department 69 Policies and Procedures * Honorable Katherine A. Bacal​

Central * Hall of Justice Revised January 2014
​

2. Law and Motion Matters: All law and motion matters are heard by reservation. Call the calendar clerk at (619) 450*7328 to schedule a motion hearing. Oral arguments on law and motion matters are heard at 1:30 p.m. on Fridays. Tentative rulings are issued pursuant to California Rules of Court and San Diego County Superior Court Rules and may be accessed any time after 4:00 p.m.on the date before the hearing.

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1057317&_dad=portal

From the department 69's policies and procedures, the tentative ruling should be available. However, it is not showing on the Tentative Ruling database. I was able to view rulings dated yesterday from department C-15. Not sure what if anything this means.

View Tentative Rulings- 2013-00075418

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1554961&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

 

[bourne]

ER 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law (nope, don't think so);
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client; (since both Berchoff and Rake withdrew from both State and Fed, I doubt this would apply unless there's a flu going around the office... lol) or
(3) the lawyer is discharged. (nope, the lawyers withdrew)

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client (this is interesting, since in the AZ Maxie case, Berchoff withdrew, thus Dina was left without representation);
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent (say what? hmmm);
(3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement (interesting... based upon the 360 turn in events, I'd put my eggs in this basket);
(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled (doubt it but open to interpretation);
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client (ditto 5); or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/EthicsOp...Opinion?id=700

Thanks Carioca for outlining why a lawyer would withdraw their services from a client. That certainly explains a lot. I'm thinking #1 through 6. Dina abusing the attorneys in order to perpetuate fraud upon the court system, Dina committing a REPUGNANT CRIME e.g., heinous murder of Rebecca and continues to cover it up with an avalanche of more and more LIES and DECEPTIVE MANEUVERINGS including using her dead son Max for sympathy and financial profit; Dina refusing to pay the lawyers (recall how she skimped out of paying a landlord for a rental apartment...).

Need we say more?

 

[LuckyLucy2]

The correct spelling is Haagar.

He is a friend of yours, correct? I believe you have stated that before. Can you give us more information about him?

 

[screecher]

Surely you jest.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

No, I don't jest. InParadise has said she knows him a few times.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I really hope Dina Shacknai has a bodyguard.

Very crappy to be a innocent person with so much garbage being said about you. So much hate has been spewed about this innocent Mother that lost her son under the care of the Rebecca Zahau, I feel If this is thrown out today she will need one.

 

[Carioca]

Department 69 Policies and Procedures * Honorable Katherine A. Bacal​

Central * Hall of Justice Revised January 2014
​

2. Law and Motion Matters: All law and motion matters are heard by reservation. Call the calendar clerk at (619) 450*7328 to schedule a motion hearing. Oral arguments on law and motion matters are heard at 1:30 p.m. on Fridays. Tentative rulings are issued pursuant to California Rules of Court and San Diego County Superior Court Rules and may be accessed any time after 4:00 p.m.on the date before the hearing.

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1057317&_dad=portal

From the department 69's policies and procedures, the tentative ruling should be available. However, it is not showing on the Tentative Ruling database. I was able to view rulings dated yesterday from department C-15. Not sure what if anything this means.

View Tentative Rulings- 2013-00075418

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1554961&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Hi Lash - Since the hearing dates have been changed as per below, the nearest date before a hearing would now be next Thursday, May 7, before the May 8 Discovery Hearing.

05/08/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing - Motion to Compel Discovery
09/04/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil)
10/09/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing

From the ROA list that K_Z posted recently, the Motion to Dismiss was vacated. IMO this is indicative that the Tentative Ruling is in favor of the Plaintiffs. IOW, Case NOT Dismissed:

149 04/27/2015 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 05/08/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.

148 04/27/2015 The Discovery Hearing was rescheduled to 05/08/2015 at 01:30:00 PM in C-69 before Katherine Bacal at Central.

147 04/27/2015 Motion to Dismiss scheduled for 05/01/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

It was not vacated. Since it is May 1, it no longer shows on the list.

157 04/30/2015 Tentative Ruling for Demurrer / Motion to Strike published.

 

[screecher]

motion to dismiss :denied:

 

[LuckyLucy2]

motion to dismiss :denied:

That has not shown up on the Court website, or did the Zahaus tell you?

Link please?

 

[bourne]

Hi Lash - Since the hearing dates have been changed as per below, the nearest date before a hearing would now be next Thursday, May 7, before the May 8 Discovery Hearing.

05/08/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing - Motion to Compel Discovery
09/04/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil)
10/09/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing

From the ROA list that K_Z posted recently, the Motion to Dismiss was vacated. IMO this is indicative that the Tentative Ruling is in favor of the Plaintiffs. IOW, Case NOT Dismissed:

149 04/27/2015 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 05/08/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.

148 04/27/2015 The Discovery Hearing was rescheduled to 05/08/2015 at 01:30:00 PM in C-69 before Katherine Bacal at Central.

147 04/27/2015 Motion to Dismiss scheduled for 05/01/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.

Thanks Carioca. Certainly appears that the case is going forward with all those discovery hearings scheduled from May 8 to Nov 6. PLUS as you found, the judge VACATED the motion to dismiss hearing scheduled for today way back on 4/27/15. <modsnip>

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Don't believe me, Bourne. Here is a screenshot from the State Court website. Since you obviously haven't been able to sleuth yourself there, I went for you.


There was a ruling made yesterday.

 

[K_Z]

Also wanted to mention that in several of the recent documents, Attorney Greer has made specific mention that RZ was murdered to prevent her from disclosing information that was embarrassing or unfavorable to the Shacknai and Romano families.

Now, that is interesting to speculate about, and elevates wrongful death action (and motive) beyond ordinary vindictiveness/ retribution. It also potentially implies a monetary value connected to the "prevention from disclosure", IMO. Interesting.



https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...otion_and_Supporting_Declar_1430441570121.pdf

BBM

That was mentioned in the original version of the WDS as well. Wonder what RZ knew that could cause such embarrassment to the Shacknai and Romano families? What could be so bad that would motivate them to kill her to keep the information secret?

Exactly. Attorney Greer has been referring to this for a long time. This is from November, 2014:

The family's attorney, Keith Greer, told 10News, "In the heat of the moment, they saw, you know, the only way out was to murder her to keep her quiet and then figure out some way to make it look like it wasn't them."

BBM.

http://www.10news.com/news/dina-sha...g-on-lawsuit-filed-by-family-of-rebecca-zahau

I don't think Atty Greer was referring only to the Defendants knowledge of their alleged violent confrontation, and assault of Rebecca. JMO. I think he is referring to something else Rebecca knew about the Defendants, and had to be silenced for it.

I've often wondered if Rebecca knew about some very serious things that compromised Max's safety when not in Jonah's custody. IDK. Maybe Jonah was contemplating going for sole legal and physical custody of Max? Maybe there was an imminent custody battle? That could be embarrassing to both the Shacknais and the Romanos, and result in loss of $$ (child support) if Dina were to lose custody of Max.

 

[bourne]

Thanks Carioca. Certainly appears that the case is going forward with all those discovery hearings scheduled from May 8 to Nov 6. PLUS as you found, the judge VACATED the motion to dismiss hearing scheduled for today way back on 4/27/15. <modsnip>

I will repeat. On 4/27/2015 the Judge *VACATED* the motion to dismiss hearing scheduled 5/01/2015.

<modsnip>. If the demurrer had been granted, there would be NO need to VACATE the motion to dismiss hearing today. In other words, the Judge would have gone through with the dismissal hearing today so she could properly and legally dismiss the WDS. There would also be no need for the Judge to RESCHEDULE NUMEROUS DISCOVERY HEARINGS lasting from May 2015 through Nov 2015.

TO SUMMARIZE: The Zahaus' WDS against Dina, et al. is proceeding with the next hearing for DISCOVERY set for May 8, 2015. Furthermore, last year 11/21/2014, there were several demurrers made by POIs and they were ALL VACATED.

Attached is the Register of Actions in Judge Bacal's court for the Zahaus' WDS against Dina:

 

[bourne]

Here are the Demurrers scheduled for 11/21/2014 which were VACATED by Judge last year (see 31-34 in attached). As we all know, the WDS did NOT get dismissed last year because someone filed a demurrer/motion to strike. In fact, the WDS went forward and still continues on to today and into at least into Nov 2015. Hence just because POIs file demurrers does not mean they are granted by the Judge.

 

[bourne]

Exactly. Attorney Greer has been referring to this for a long time. This is from November, 2014:



BBM.

http://www.10news.com/news/dina-sha...g-on-lawsuit-filed-by-family-of-rebecca-zahau

I don't think Atty Greer was referring only to the Defendants knowledge of their alleged violent confrontation, and assault of Rebecca. JMO. I think he is referring to something else Rebecca knew about the Defendants, and had to be silenced for it.

I've often wondered if Rebecca knew about some very serious things that compromised Max's safety when not in Jonah's custody. IDK. Maybe Jonah was contemplating going for sole legal and physical custody of Max? Maybe there was an imminent custody battle? That could be embarrassing to both the Shacknais and the Romanos, and result in loss of $$ (child support) if Dina were to lose custody of Max.

Do you think the potential imminent custody battle between Jonah and Dina might have been a precipitating factor for why Max suddenly had an accident and that either Jonah or Dina caused the accident?

 

[K_Z]

Do you think the potential imminent custody battle between Jonah and Dina might have been a precipitating factor for why Max suddenly had an accident and that either Jonah or Dina caused the accident?

No. I think Max's death was just a horrendous, tragic accident. I don't know exactly how it happened, or who may have been there or involved (if any beyond Max), but I've never felt that his death was intentional in any way. I think the horribly unexpected, and emotionally shattering effects of his death directly lead to Rebecca's vindictive, IMO, murder.

But I am intrigued as to what Rebecca knew, that the Plaintiffs believe necessitated her murder by the defendants, to prevent her from disclosing.

And I do think there were potentially serious safety issues/ concerns with Max, when he was not with his father (specifically, when he was with his mother). JMO. I might be wrong. Or not.

ETA: Imagine the anger someone might experience of being accused of neglecting, or having an unsafe parenting situation, and then your child dies in a horrible accident, while in the custody of the one accusing you of neglect, or an unsafe parenting environment? That person could be just overwhelmed with anger, and the perceived hypocrisy of it all. Coupled with a pre-existing jealous vendetta against the new love of an ex. It could push someone over the proverbial edge, KWIM?

 

[kittychi]

IMO Jonah holds the key in this entire case. He knows what Rebecca knew, he knows if DS was sitting vigil by her son that night, he probably knows that her phone was still in the hospital room, he knows why Nina needed to use his car and he knows Adam's capabilities (and vulnerabilities). He knows exactly who made those tugboat hitch knots. Most of all, he knows DS well.

I had another thought...i always wondered why Adam would just do what he was told and take orders from DS. Perhaps he actually had a reason besides "she killed your nephew."

This line of thinking that Rebecca knew something makes the sign on the door look more and more like a message to JS, which many of us thought from the beginning.

It also provides a motive for JS to quickly move on as quietly as possible and paper over anything he possibly could (fake house sale, not allowing access to the Zahaus).

Probably unrealistic of me to think that, when this is over, the collusion of Gore, Phingst, et al to cover up the murder comes to light and something gets done about it. But that is my hope.

 

[kittychi]

IMO if this case were dismissed I would expect a press conference or another way to announce it by DS.

 

[inthedark14]

Thanks so much everyone for the discussion and the documents! :loveyou:

While I sadly can't join in on the wine and legal doc reading party :baby: it appears that the suit is going forward and there will be much more to read in the coming months. So after July, I'll be able to join in a little indulging while reading the mind numbing legal mumbo jumbo (no offence to the legal eagles, it's just crazy making for me!).

If there is this much documentation coming out of the suit at this stage, imagine how much will be arriving once the depos and upcoming hearings are happening.

The resilience of the Z family is amazing especially in the face of all these years of hate directed at them.

ALWAYS MOO