Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Just two hours until the Judge makes her decision!

Sure do hope she compels the Zahaus to answer the almost 100 questions they refused to answer, and fines them for their outright refusal to answer deposition questions in a case THEY initiated.

:scale: Justice for the Innocent!

JMO, but I don't see that happening. Dina is the one on trial in this lawsuit, not the Zahau family. If Dina has refused to answer any questions so far, its seems unrealistic the judge would think they need to force the Zahau's to answer even more questions.

Time to talk, Dina. Present your alibi.
 
^ Again, Betty P, I ask how you know Dina has not taken a depostion, and has refused to tallk, like the Zahaus have.

Do you have a link you can supplly? AFAIK, there has been no list of depostions released since last January. I would imagine that Dina has already been deposed, and since the Zahaus have not filed a Motion to Compel againster her, it appears she answered everything asked of her. Quite unlike the Zahaus.

It is the Zahaus who are having to go before the court because of their refusal to answer over 100 deposition questions.

We will see just how Judge Bacall sees their blatant refusal to answer depostion questions and how they have no evidence whatsoever for their lurid and invented claims very, very soon!

I hope she grants every penny - and then some - of the monetary sanctions requested!
 
Just two hours until the Judge makes her decision!

Sure do hope she compels the Zahaus to answer the almost 100 questions they refused to answer, and fines them for their outright refusal to answer deposition questions in a case THEY initiated.

:scale: Justice for the Innocent!

Wait... what? You mean like the way Dina followed orders from the judge in her suit against Jonah? The irony.
 
^ Again, Betty P, I ask how you know Dina has not taken a depostion, and has refused to tallk, like the Zahaus have.

Do you have a link you can supplly? AFAIK, there has been no list of depostions released since last January. I would imagine that Dina has already been deposed, and since the Zahaus have not filed a Motion to Compel againster her, it appears she answered everything asked of her. Quite unlike the Zahaus.

It is the Zahaus who are having to go before the court because of their refusal to answer over 100 deposition questions.

We will see just how Judge Bacall sees their blatant refusal to answer depostion questions and how they have no evidence whatsoever for their lurid and invented claims very, very soon!

I hope she grants every penny - and then some - of the monetary sanctions requested!

Right... like the monetary sanctions ordered by the judge against Dina in HER case against Jonah. Rich.
 
^ Again, Betty P, I ask how you know Dina has not taken a depostion, and has refused to tallk, like the Zahaus have.

Do you have a link you can supplly? AFAIK, there has been no list of depostions released since last January. I would imagine that Dina has already been deposed, and since the Zahaus have not filed a Motion to Compel againster her, it appears she answered everything asked of her. Quite unlike the Zahaus.

It is the Zahaus who are having to go before the court because of their refusal to answer over 100 deposition questions.

We will see just how Judge Bacall sees their blatant refusal to answer depostion questions and how they have no evidence whatsoever for their lurid and invented claims very, very soon!

I hope she grants every penny - and then some - of the monetary sanctions requested!

As I stated, it's JMO, just my opinion. Given the way Dina has behaved in her previous lawsuit against Jonah, it's possible she's avoided answering questions in lieu of trying to put others on the defense. But remember, it's Dina who is the defendant in this case.
 
Just to keep us on topic - this thread is about the $10 Million Wrongful Death Suit the Zahaus filed against Adam and Dina Shacknai, and Nina Romano - not about the case Dina filed against Jonah.
 
New entries on the SD ROA from today's hearing:

264 11/20/2015 Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (Lois Mason Thompson, CSR #3685) filed by The Superior Court of San Diego.
263 11/20/2015 Minutes finalized for Multiple Events heard 11/20/2015 01:30:00 PM.
262 11/20/2015 Tentative Ruling for Discovery Hearing published.

I'd expect the minute order to be published Monday, but it's possibly lagging in the system and could be available this weekend.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
 
TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 20, 2015

EVENT DATE: 11/20/2015
EVENT TIME: 01:30:00 PM
DEPT.: C-69
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Katherine Bacal
CASE NO.: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
CASE TITLE: ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI [IMAGED]

CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing

CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other

CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 10/13/2015
The motions to compel further deposition testimony, filed by defendant Dina Shacknai, are granted inpart and denied in part as indicated below. Defendant's request for sanctions is denied.

6 pages-
http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/v...-00075418&SelDates=11/20/2015&EventId=1601102
 
From 11/20/2015 ​Tentative Ruling - page 6

4. Monetary Sanctions


Defendant requests $8,391 in sanctions for bringing these motions. The party prevailing on a motion to compel further responses is entitled to sanctions unless the trial court finds that "the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.480, subd. (j). In light of the mixed results, neither party prevailed on the motion. Defendant's request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant is directed to serve notice on all parties within 2 court days of this ruling.
 
Translation? TIA!

Hey Gilgamesh :wave:

IANAL, but I will give it a shot. Mary, XZ and Doug were all separately deposed. As instructed by their attorney there were multiple questions each refused to answer. The Zahau's attorney Mr. Greer objected for several reasons....The objections could have been attorney client privilege, privacy, work product, marriage privilege and/or argumentative.

As a result, Dina's attorneys filed a motion to compel Mary, XZ and Doug to answer the objected questions. Dina also requested sanctions ($8,391) be placed on the Zahau's for expenses she occurred having to file the motion to compel.

On Friday Judge Bacal granted part of Dina's request to compel the Zahau's to answer. I would say it was a 50\50 split. Some depo questions the judge agreed with the Zahau's and they need not respond. Some of the questions the judge agreed with Dina and a response is required. Judge Bacal denied Dina's request for sanctions. The Zahau's do not have to pay any of the expenses Dina occurred.

Hope that helps :) !
 
Thank you, Lash, for posting the ruling.

I'm quite happy with the Judge's ruling overall. I think it was very fair.

The very few questions that each are directed to answer should be able to be cleared up in short order. And really, many of the questions they are directed to answer are simple answers, like "yes/ no".

Perhaps AZLawyer can comment-- to what extent are follow up questions to the "allowed" 2nd deposition questions permitted? I think that might be pretty limited, without going back to the court with another request, but I'm interested to read AZL's impression of how this works in actuality.

ETA: I left a more detailed set of questions in the "ask a lawyer" thread.
 
I like this Judge- very fair and balanced. I am so happy to see this case moving forward. I believe Justice for Rebecca is on the horizon.
 
It is so nice to see that everyone is in agreement on how fair Judge Bacall has been to the Zahaus! That means there shouldn't be any cries of unfairness, or favoritism from the Zahau supporters when the case is dismissed in February for lack of evidence, as I am convinced it will be. After all, the Judge already warned the Zahaus that they needed evidence before they submitted the 8th iteration of the complaint which still had no evidence for their outrageous claims.

Although I certainly wish that the Zahaus had been fined for the questions that they SHOULD have answered – but did not – the fact that they were not fined shows that the Judge is being very patient with the Zahaus, any has certainly given them every break she can.

I am very glad to see the questions that the Judge has ruled MUST be answered. The questions go to the EVIDENCE in the case, of which the Zahaus have none. They will have no answers for most of the questions below, since Dina, Nina, and Adam were never in the courtyard or in the guest room that morning that Rebecca committed suicide.


The questions Mary Zahau will have to answer:

15. Have you ever told your mother that Neil (Rebecca's ex-husband) tried to strangle Rebecca?

17. Do you still believe that Jonah should have protected Rebecca?

18. What evidence do you have as a plaintiff that you believe prove that my client killed Rebecca?

23. Are you aware of anybody who saw my client hit Rebecca on the night or morning of her death?

24. Okay. So you -- is it correct that you decided to file this lawsuit solely based upon those opinions (i.e. that her sister would not commit suicide given that Max was doing better, she had to stay strong for Jonah and she would see her Dad in a couple of months)?

25. As you sit here today, are you aware of any witnesses who will testify that any of the defendants were present with Rebecca at the house after midnight on the morning that she was found?

26. Do you have any evidence or know of any witnesses who place any of the three defendants at the house within six hours of Rebecca's death?

28. So the complaint alleges that my client struck Rebecca multiple times on her head with a blunt instrument, correct? What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

29. You also allege that my client physically restrained Rebecca, true? What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

30. The complaint alleges that my client gagged Rebecca. What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

31. The complaint claims that my client assisted in binding Rebecca's hands behind her back with a rope. What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

33. On page 6, line 18, it says that each of the defendants named herein were present at the location where the murder of Rebecca occurred and all of them actively participated in the planning, implementation, execution, and subsequent concealment of the scheme to murder Rebecca. What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

34. On page 7 of your first amendment 14 complaint, it states that on the evening of July 12, 2011, Dina aggressively confronted the decedent at the Ocean Boulevard residence. What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

35. ?

36. You state in your first amended complaint, page 7, line 9, that on the evening of July 12, 2011, Dina aggressively confronted the decedent at the Ocean Boulevard residence along with her sister Nina. What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

37. You also state in your compliant on page 7, line 18, that Rebecca attempted to flee the residence. What evidence, if any, do you have to support that allegation?

38. On page 8, around line 4, you claim that Adam carried the decedent back into the house. What facts do you have to base that allegation on?

39. Same page, around line 7, you claim that the defendants stripped off her clothing. What evidence do you have to base that allegation on?

40. Same page, line 9, etc., you claim that the defendants first restrained the decedent with tape and gagged her while they were devising and planning the rest of the scheme and later removed the tape from the scene. What evidence do you have to base that allegation on?

41. Page 8, line 16, etc., you claim that the final scheme agreed to that evening by the defendants involved binding decedent's hands behind her back and ankles with a rope they found at the residence. What evidence do you have upon which you base that allegation?

42. In your complaint, you claim on page 9, line 12, that either Dina or Nina was sitting on the bed to which the rope was secured. What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

43. Page 9, line 20, etc., you claim that the defendants were careful to remove any evidence of their involvement, including the disposal of the tape and Rebecca's clothes. What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

46. What evidence do you have from the autopsy report that the that any of the defendants struck Rebecca on the head multiple times with a blunt instrument?

47. ?

48. The next highlighted portion is same page, line 12 to 14. I'll read it. It says, "Maxfield fell over a second-floor railing at the Ocean Boulevard residence causing him brain damage and eventually his death on July 16, 2011. Decedent was baby-sitting Maxfield at the time of the fall." I'll ask the broader question first: What evidence, if any, do you have to support that allegation?

49. So this is what was highlighted: "Each of the defendants had his or her own motives for committing these wrongful acts, including anger and revenge against Rebecca arising from the fatal injuries suffered by a six-year-old Maxfield Shacknai -- nephew to Adam, niece to Nina, and daughter to Dina -- while Rebecca was taking care of him two days before she was murdered. In addition, defendant Dina Shacknai was extremely jealous of Rebecca's relationship with her ex-husband Jonah Shacknai and her now deceased son Maxwell (sic)." So what evidence, if any, do you have to support these allegations?

50. So your counsel has now highlighted page 14, line 14 and 15. They state: "Immediately prior to her murder, Rebecca owned the clothing she was wearing and also owned and possessed other personal property." What -- first of all, what's your basis for stating this?

51. So because you don't have the clothes, you believe that somebody threw them out? And because you don't have the clothes, you believe that that somebody is one of the three
defendants?

52. And then you say in this that she also owned and possessed other personal property. What do you mean by "owned and possessed other property"? What specifically are you referring to in this statement?

Questions Doug Loehner will have to answer:

5. Did you review any of the complaints that were filed in this lawsuit before they were filed?

6. Did you have anything to do with approving what was going to be said to the news media at any time after Rebecca's death?

7. What involvement, if any, did Mary have with any of the statements that were made to the news media?

9. Have you read the sheriffs department's file-or any portion thereof?

10. In anything that you have seen, any evidence that you've seen in this case, do you believe that any of it point to my client having hand anything to do with Rebecca's death?

11. As you sit here today, do you know of any evidence that you believe would disprove the suicide theory?

12. Do you know if Jonah or any of his representatives have ever contacted you or the family or any of the family's lawyers?

13. The same question as to whether Jonah or any of his representatives have ever contacted any of your experts.

14. Did you have anything to do with the decision not to sue Jonah for the wrongful death of Rebecca?

16. I assume you have your own opinions as to what might or might not have transpired the evening of Rebecca's death. What is the -- what are the facts upon which you base those opinions?

17. What do you believe happened to Rebecca?

18. Is the lawsuit also based on any actual facts that place any of the defendants anywhere near Rebecca shortly before her death?

19. It's my understanding that Rebecca --that -- that you -- you and/or the family and/or your lawyer has Rebecca's cell phone records. Have you ever looked at them?

20. Have you ever looked at any of Rebecca's e-mails?

21. My last question is do you -- do you have an opinion as to what happened to Rebecca—and who was involved?

Questions XZ will have to answer:

7. What was the purpose for which you retained Mr. Greer?

And depending on that answer, possibly:

2 Do you remember if they recorded it (her second interview) either with a video or with just a handheld recorder, any device?

3 Why were you listening to the 911 call?<
 
^ What the heck does the above have to do with *evidence* regarding the murder of Rebecca?

This is a wrongful death suit. Asking extraneous questions of peripheral people who were not even physically present in CA during Rebecca's murder is a bunch of irrelevant B.S. designed to divert from real killers, .

I am certain when the TRIAL comes, Dina and her sadistic cronies will come to light and be found GUILTY.

RIP Rebecca Zahau. GO directly to jail and get capital punishment Dina etc.
 
These are mostly bizarre and irrelevant questions, IMO, particularly those asked of Doug Loehner and XZ.

Why is Doug Loehner bothering Dina so much? His role in this murder investigation is very limited. What's the point of asking him all these bizarre questions? Is it simply part of some harassment campaign Dina has launched against him? Is she making some ridiculous attempt to impugn his reputation in some way? If so, these questions aren't going to do that.

As for XZ, Dina's harassment of that child over the years shows the kind of person she is. The questions about Greer seem nonsensical.

As for the other questions, most of that information has already been revealed in the investigative reports of Rebecca's murder and the Zahau's lawsuit. Regardless of how the question is answered about RZ's former husband, it seems unlikely it would be allowed in court, IMO. Dina keeps forgetting that this trial is about the Zahau's lawsuit against her, not an opportunity to grandstand and attack a family of a murder victim.

I keep thinking back on other famous WD lawsuits, like OJ Simpson. Even with good behavior in the courtroom, OJ still lost. Can you imagine what the jury will think of Dina's offensive grandstanding and bizarre accusations against the victims in court when the trial begins? IMO, she won't get any sympathy with these tactics.

JMO
 
^ Rebecca Zahau is not a murder victim (her death was a suicide), and there is not going to be a trial.

It is not Dina asking the questions, it is Dina's very asute lawyer. So you are mistaken about who is responsible for the questions - all of which are relevant to the case, IMO.

OJ lost the civil trial because the physical evidence against him was overwhelming. It had nothing to do with his behavior. There is no physical evidence that places Dina, Nina, or Adam in the courtyard or balcony room becuase they were not there. Only Rebecca was there. She committed suicide, as proved by LE.

The Zahaus have no evidence because their allegations are made up and concocted to try to bilk $10 million dollars out of innocent people.

Is that why everyone is so upset that Dina's lawyer is asking about the evidence?
 
^ What the heck does the above have to do with *evidence* regarding the murder of Rebecca?

This is a wrongful death suit. Asking extraneous questions of peripheral people who were not even physically present in CA during Rebecca's murder is a bunch of irrelevant B.S. designed to divert from real killers, .

I am certain when the TRIAL comes, Dina and her sadistic cronies will come to light and be found GUILTY.

RIP Rebecca Zahau. GO directly to jail and get capital punishment Dina etc.


Bourne, you must not be aware that this is a CIVIL trial, not a criminal trial.

Rebecca Zahau's death was ruled a suicide, and that is what her death certificate states.

No one will ever go to jail, and the only capital punishment is what Rebecca sentenced herself to over her role in young Max's horrific "accident" and death.

This case is not going to trial. The Judge has already warned the Zahaus that they need evidence. They have none since nothing they have alledged actually happened, and no one was in the courtyard or balcony room but Rebecca herself.

The case will be thrown out in February, and Rebecca's death will always be ruled a suicide.
 
Why was XZ listening to the 911 call? Why does she need a lawyer???????
 
In my opinion, it is quite evident why XZ retained an attorney. One, XZ (a minor) was publicly accused of committing homicide. Two, my personal opinion, XZ obtained a restraining order.

On February 21, 2013, Dina Shacknai went to the media and gave an interview with KTAR on Pat's Personal Portraits. In the interview Dina very publicly accused Rebecca and XZ of homicide.


http://web.archive.org/web/20130225...2/Pats-Personal-Portraits-Dina-Shacknai-VIDEO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
250
Total visitors
371

Forum statistics

Threads
609,571
Messages
18,255,698
Members
234,693
Latest member
Jarie_401
Back
Top