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

[*Lash*]

Actual motion: filed April, 2015

ROA doc #121

I'm curious why this wasn't heard back on January 12th, 2016 when a summary judgment hearing was scheduled?

 

[bourne]

Actual motion: filed April, 2015

ROA doc #121

I'm curious why this wasn't heard back on January 12th, 2016 when a summary judgment hearing was scheduled?

Thanks. IANAL but I don't think Adam's "Judgment on the Pleadings" is the same as "Summary Judgment"??

 

[bessie]

ADMIN NOTE: I'm re-opening this thread with a stern warning. Excessive use of caps, red and large fonts, smilies, and sarcasm intended to incite conflict is trolling behavior, and will not be tolerated. Please alert on such posts, and do not quote them.

Keep in mind that if you quote a post that violates TOS and has to be removed, your reply post is subject to removal, as well. So, don't waste your time composing a post which subsequently will be deleted. If you want to make a point, compose your post in such a way that it stands on its own, and not as a response to the offending post.

 

[*Lash*]

Hi Bourne! You may be correct. I made a post in the lawyer thread asking for an opinion. Below it appears there is some difference between a motion for judgment on pleadings and a motion for summary judgment, but they may also be the same? IANAL, hoping to get a better understanding.

49 CFR 821.17 - Motions to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment.

§ 821.17 Motions to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment.

(a) Motions to dismiss petition for review or complaint. A motion to dismiss a petition for review or a complaint may be filed in lieu of an answer, within the time limit for filing an answer set forth in § 821.24(c) or § 821.31(b). If such motion is not granted in its entirety, the answer shall be filed within 10 days after service of the law judge's order on the motion.

(b) Motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction may be made by any party at any time.

(c) Motions for judgment on the pleadings. A party may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that no answer has been filed, or that the pleadings disclose that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved and that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(d) Motions for summary judgment. A party may file a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the pleadings and other supporting documentation establish that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved and that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(e) Appeals of dismissal, judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment orders. When a law judge grants a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment, and terminates the proceeding without a hearing, an appeal of such order to the Board may be filed pursuant to the provisions of § 821.47. When a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment is granted in part, § 821.16 applies.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/821.17

 

[bourne]

Hi Bourne! You may be correct. I made a post in the lawyer thread asking for an opinion. Below it appears there is some difference between a motion for judgment on pleadings and a motion for summary judgment, but they may also be the same? IANAL, hoping to get a better understanding.

This is what I found about the two judgments:

"A motion for summary judgment is made after discovery and with evidence attached if it appears from discovery that there are no material facts in dispute and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the bench trial equivalent of a motion for directed verdict. It is made orally at trial at the close of the plaintiff's case if the defendant believes that the plaintiff has not made a prima facie case, that is, has not proven sufficient facts to meet his initial burden of proof and require the defendant to present a defense."

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-the-difference-between-a-motion-for-judgme-1144682.html

~~~
I don't understand the difference but that's what a lawyer said. LOL Hopefully AZlawyer can explicate the difference more.

 

[bourne]

Wow. Someone substantially rewrote the Wiki on Death of Rebecca Zahau recently (last edit January 16, 2016) so much so there's no mention of Dr. Wecht's conclusion that her death should be reinvestigated and the manner of death rule "Inconclusive with high probability towards homicide/foul play". Wiki also now makes NO mention that Rebecca was had four deep contusions on her head indicating "foul play", and blows sufficient to render her unconscious and that she could have been strangled first and then thrown over balcony for hanging with noose around her head. Moreover, Wiki downplays the importance of the unretrieved voicemail that Jonah presumably left on Rebecca's cellphone and the fact that the investigators took it upon themselves NOT to retrieve the voicemail until it was past the one-month period when the phone company would have permanently scrubbed its database of voicemails.

What is going on here? I think it is most evident that pro-Dina's are going full force to try to rewrite as much of the history of Zahau's murder as possible, even on Wiki, especially since (modsnip)

 

[BBL]

Wow. Someone substantially rewrote the Wiki on Death of Rebecca Zahau recently (last edit January 16, 2016) so much so there's no mention of Dr. Wecht's conclusion that her death should be reinvestigated and the manner of death rule "Inconclusive with high probability towards homicide/foul play". Wiki also now makes NO mention that Rebecca was had four deep contusions on her head indicating "foul play", and blows sufficient to render her unconscious and that she could have been strangled first and then thrown over balcony for hanging with noose around her head. Moreover, Wiki downplays the importance of the unretrieved voicemail that Jonah presumably left on Rebecca's cellphone and the fact that the investigators took it upon themselves NOT to retrieve the voicemail until it was past the one-month period when the phone company would have permanently scrubbed its database of voicemails.

What is going on here? I think it is most evident that pro-Dina's are going full force to try to rewrite as much of the history of Zahau's murder as possible, even on Wiki, especially since two of its posters (modsnip)

That is pretty amazing. I would think the wiki moderators would notice such massive editing. I also don't think it a coincidence that the timing of the Wiki edits coincide with (modsnip).

 

[Frigga]

Praying today for justice for Rebecca and the people who loved her.

It would be so simple for Dina to come forward (herself or her attorney- nothing less) and prove once and for all her airtight alibi- that is what her defenders claim. The fact that she has not proves to me, and anyone with a logical mind and rational thinking, that she cannot because she doesn't have an alibi.

With that fact alone, the precarious house of cards she has built crumbles.

 

[*Lash*]

Interesting, this entire section regarding the WDS has also been completely removed from Wiki. It was originally under Lawyers and Public Relations Personnel.

On July 12, 2013 the Zahau family filed a civil wrongful death action on their behalf, and a survivor action on behalf of the Estate of Rebecca Zahau. S.D.Cal. Case No. 13CV1624W(NLS). The named defendants are Adam Shacknai (Jonah's brother), Dina Shacknai (Jonah's ex-wife) and Nina Romano (Dina Shacknai's sister). Attorneys handling the matter are C. Keith Greer, Greer & Associates and Fred Gaston, Gaston and Gaston. The law suit alleges that the defendants brutally attacked and murdered Ms. Zahau, motivated in part by rage over the fatal injury six year old Max Shacknai suffered while under the care of Ms. Zahau,jealousy over Ms. Zahau's relationship with Jonah Shacknai and the desire to keep Ms. Zahau from disclosing information that could discrace the Shacknai family. The Federal District Court did not acccept jurisdiction of the survivor action due to lack of diversity, so the estate's action was later filed in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL.

 

[justice be served]

Wow. Someone substantially rewrote the Wiki on Death of Rebecca Zahau recently (last edit January 16, 2016) so much so there's no mention of Dr. Wecht's conclusion that her death should be reinvestigated and the manner of death rule "Inconclusive with high probability towards homicide/foul play". Wiki also now makes NO mention that Rebecca was had four deep contusions on her head indicating "foul play", and blows sufficient to render her unconscious and that she could have been strangled first and then thrown over balcony for hanging with noose around her head. Moreover, Wiki downplays the importance of the unretrieved voicemail that Jonah presumably left on Rebecca's cellphone and the fact that the investigators took it upon themselves NOT to retrieve the voicemail until it was past the one-month period when the phone company would have permanently scrubbed its database of voicemails.

What is going on here? I think it is most evident that pro-Dina's are going full force to try to rewrite as much of the history of Zahau's murder as possible, even on Wiki, especially since (modsnip)

What is going on here is no different than what has gone on in the public realm since the day Rebecca's body lied uncovered for ten plus hours. "News" articles - fictionalized IMO - immediately were produced to sway public opinion. Many other articles were scrubbed. It is apparent to me that reputation companies have been and continue to be on the payroll of the defendants. LE, through their Jan Caldwell, piped in with powerful defensive comments. A detective was taken off the case almost immediately that found the case to be disturbing. It is truly a sad note to see our country plowing over a family's quest to simply know the facts without bias.

Regardless of the outcome in our courts, the case of Rebecca Zahau has represented a very sorry picture of our system and the powers that can prevail.

 

[justice be served]

Praying today for justice for Rebecca and the people who loved her.

It would be so simple for Dina to come forward (herself or her attorney- nothing less) and prove once and for all her airtight alibi- that is what her defenders claim. The fact that she has not proves to me, and anyone with a logical mind and rational thinking, that she cannot because she doesn't have an alibi.

With that fact alone, the precarious house of cards she has built crumbles.

BBM. No matter how we dice and slice what is known, this fact remains. And the operative word you used was "simple". I would further like to see hard evidence on where all of them were. One was staying at the house, another admitted to being at the house and a witness saw the third. Another witness heard screaming. The Zahaus have every right to know exactly what happened that night and I, too, will pray for them to find justice.

 

[screecher]

BBM. No matter how we dice and slice what is known, this fact remains. And the operative word you used was "simple". I would further like to see hard evidence on where all of them were. One was staying at the house, another admitted to being at the house and a witness saw the third. Another witness heard screaming. The Zahaus have every right to know exactly what happened that night and I, too, will pray for them to find justice.

^^^and don't forget 'loud music' was heard coming from 1043 Ocean Blvd after the screaming.

 

[screecher]

Wow. Someone substantially rewrote the Wiki on Death of Rebecca Zahau recently (last edit January 16, 2016) so much so there's no mention of Dr. Wecht's conclusion that her death should be reinvestigated and the manner of death rule "Inconclusive with high probability towards homicide/foul play". Wiki also now makes NO mention that Rebecca was had four deep contusions on her head indicating "foul play", and blows sufficient to render her unconscious and that she could have been strangled first and then thrown over balcony for hanging with noose around her head. Moreover, Wiki downplays the importance of the unretrieved voicemail that Jonah presumably left on Rebecca's cellphone and the fact that the investigators took it upon themselves NOT to retrieve the voicemail until it was past the one-month period when the phone company would have permanently scrubbed its database of voicemails.

What is going on here? I think it is most evident that pro-Dina's are going full force to try to rewrite as much of the history of Zahau's murder as possible, even on Wiki, especially since (modsnip)

iirc, this is not the first time it has happened.

Some it seems, are in overdrive!

 

[screecher]

Interesting, this entire section regarding the WDS has also been completely removed from Wiki. It was originally under Lawyers and Public Relations Personnel.

Wow. Does it say date of last edit?

 

[bourne]

This is what I found about the two judgments:

"A motion for summary judgment is made after discovery and with evidence attached if it appears from discovery that there are no material facts in dispute and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the bench trial equivalent of a motion for directed verdict. It is made orally at trial at the close of the plaintiff's case if the defendant believes that the plaintiff has not made a prima facie case, that is, has not proven sufficient facts to meet his initial burden of proof and require the defendant to present a defense."

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-the-difference-between-a-motion-for-judgme-1144682.html

~~~
I don't understand the difference but that's what a lawyer said. LOL Hopefully AZlawyer can explicate the difference more.

Ok, AZlawyer explained the difference in legal thread just a little while ago

"Summary judgment" calls for Dismissal of case with Proof given by Defendants as to why case is invalid. "Judgment on the pleadings" means we don't need to provide evidence, case is without merits on its face.

THANKS AGAIN, AZLawyer! You're the best

By the way, this means, once again, that pro-Dina lied when they said defendants have filed "Summary Judgement" motion...but then, what else is new? LOL

 

[bourne]

Interesting, this entire section regarding the WDS has also been completely removed from Wiki. It was originally under Lawyers and Public Relations Personnel.

Wow. Someone doesn't want the public to know there's a WDS going on! LOL So ridiculous is this scrubbing...ProDinas getting real desperate. Sorry Pro-Dinas. The WDS is proceeding forward and Dina will have to face her crimes soon.

Here's some sound advice Dina. Now is a good time to produce your alibi evidence! Otherwise, go directly to :jail:

 

[*Lash*]

Hi AZlawyer!

Could you confirm if ROA doc #121, motion for judgment on pleadings is indeed a motion for summary judgment? From what I have read it appears to be, but IANAL and would rather have your expert opinion. TIA

I posted the entire pdf document just a few minutes ago in the WDS thread.

ETA - below is the full document.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=87602&d=1453150682

No, it's a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The difference is that a motion for judgment on the pleadings says "You don't even need to look at the evidence, judge--this claim is nonsense on the face of it." A motion for summary judgment says, "I know the Complaint makes me sound bad, judge, but look at the evidence."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...LAWYERS-No-Discussion&p=12299622#post12299622

 

[*Lash*]

Wow. Does it say date of last edit?

The last edit was on January 10, 2016. 10 days ago. I'm not real good with interpreting each edit so I don't know when the WDS details were removed.

 

[screecher]

Here it talks about the history and real estate of the Spreckles family

http://www.bungalux.com/bungalusts/sugar-daddy

Second to the last paragraph is specific to the "bay-side house" & the"beach-house". And other holdings.
Last paragraph is specific to the two deaths.

*note* "The mystery of the deaths was never solved"

I'll check back in twelve hours or so to see if its been edited. lol

 

[justice be served]

Here it talks about the history and real estate of the Spreckles family

http://www.bungalux.com/bungalusts/sugar-daddy

Second to the last paragraph is specific to the "bay-side house" & the"beach-house". And other holdings.
Last paragraph is specific to the two deaths.

*note* "The mystery of the deaths was never solved"

I'll check back in twelve hours or so to see if its been edited. lol

At least there's an article out there that is correct!! Let's see how long it stays there. Those doing the scrubbing may be doing the reading on WS.