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

[SweetT]

As far as the accident--we have one of those open foyers with the railings, obviously not as grand as the Coronado mansion, but I walked out of the bathroom after a 3 minute pee break once to see my then five year old son standing on the OUTSIDE edge of the railing upstairs, inching along. I managed to not shriek and scare him into falling but walked up the stairs and lifted him back over and then started freaking out.

Once I was at a children's museum which had multiple levels and had to grab a little girl who was trying to climb up the railing which happened to be 3 floors up. Delivered her to her father who was on the phone. Kids just have no concept of danger and do the weirdest things that they see on TV or whatever. Obviously accidents happen all the time without willful malfeasance on the part of the parents. I never thought I would have to tell my son "by the way, don't climb over that railing while I'm answering the call of nature."

I don't like these open foyers at all, though.

I understand that but IF he had fallen it would have been straight down, not all the way across to the other bannister, knocking down a chandelier as he went, having it fall atop of him after hitting his back on the bannister all the way across the other side...I mean how far was that anyway from the top to the other side? 8 feet or more? I just don't buy it. I once saw a child fall at an airport yrs ago, it was terrible as they were on the 2nd floor and fell down through the railment to the bottom floor, I am not sure if they died or not, Later the airport put up clear glass or soothing there so nothing could fall through but the child went straight down like a brick. Anyway, that is off subject to this thread but it had to have been something different in my opinion than what they say and how they say.

 

[CricketFern]

That is not logical at all. And I can assure you I am not Dina, although I know many of you allude that I am. You are as wrong about that as you are about Rebecca Zahau being murdered.

Again, please read my previous post. I am not the one that said you were Dina. I do however, stand by belief that Rebecca was murdered.

I will point out though that saying you were somewhere is not the same as proving you were there. I am not aware that Dina proved she was anywhere. Perhaps you are privy to information I have not seen.

I also think your characterization of the Zahaus is, at the minimum, overly harsh. I believe the money factor is irrelevant - just as it was in the Simpson civil case. The Zahau family is, in my opinion, trying simply to get answers to what is a very odd, implausible death.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I've always suspected that some of the adamant supporters are LE. Because, let's face it, if Dina et al are found responsible then a huge spotlight will be shone on the investigation (or lack there of). Those associated from an investigative angle have a lot of skin in the game. If the Zahaus win the lawsuit, then I would think LE would be next for a botched (or biased) investigation. IMO

LE has a very vested interest in this case not being reopened. I have thought for awhile now that some of the posters are LE. Totally agree.

 

[justice be served]

LE has a very vested interest in this case not being reopened. I have thought for awhile now that some of the posters are LE. Totally agree.

The post you are responding to is not my post though I agree with it. For some reason the respective posters are getting screwed up as to who is attributed to each post.

At any rate, I suspect that Sitrick & Co.indeed are posting IMO - after all, that's what they do, in theory, for SDSO per their own website in listing their clients. Speaking of this fact, seems idiotic that SDSO or any of Sitrick clients would choose to display that they are clients of a reputation management company. Did I already say idiotic? Well, just don't get it unless SDSO doesn't realize they are on the client list. It's probably Sheriff Gore's Jan Caldwell responsible for administering Sitrick's services. She's a beaut.

 

[K_Z]

And I am going to guess that Dina Shacknai's ceiling is $10 million dollars on her umbrella IMO. It wouldn't have made sense to go after more.

Respectfully snipped. I agree that Dina's ceiling is probably at, or below, $10 million dollars on the Chubb umbrella policy, and that may be why that amount was chosen as the lawsuit damages by the Plaintiffs. From records that are publicly available, that is probably the maximum of DS's net worth at the time of the divorce. (And I suspect her net worth today has substantially changed since that time-- lower. I've long suspected DS is cash poor, with her wealth tied up in non-liquid holdings from the divorce, and no apparent source of current income.)

This is from 6/6/2015, AZ Court of Appeals decision, related to an appeal of the conditions of their divorce:

http://law.justia.com/cases/arizona...ion-one-unpublished/2015/1-ca-cv-13-0555.html

From page 10:

Wife asserted that she earned approximately $18,000 per year and declared her own net worth to be “approximately $1,900,000 in an investment account and the Arizona residence in which she resides.” Husband pointed out that, pursuant to the consent decree, Wife received her home debt-free and a cash payment of $2,900,000, she had already received stock valued at more than $1,000,000, and she could potentially receive another $6,200,000 in assets through the trusts. Although Wife is certainly not without resources, Husband clearly has substantially more financial resources available.

 

[kittychi]

the post you are responding to is not my post though i agree with it. For some reason the respective posters are getting screwed up as to who is attributed to each post.

At any rate, i suspect that sitrick & co.indeed are posting imo - after all, that's what they do, in theory, for sdso per their own website in listing their clients. Speaking of this fact, seems idiotic that sdso or any of sitrick clients would choose to display that they are clients of a reputation management company. Did i already say idiotic? Well, just don't get it unless sdso doesn't realize they are on the client list. It's probably sheriff gore's jan caldwell responsible for administering sitrick's services. She's a beaut.

bbm: B - i - n - g - o !

 

[K_Z]

Don't forget that Jan Caldwell was an FBI agent for 32 years before retiring and taking the media relations director job for Gore and the SDSO.

Sitrick specializes in "media relations"/ media manipulation.

http://www.sdsheriff.net/commandstaff/caldwell.html

http://sitrick.com/

Clients include public and private companies – from those in the Fortune 100 to start-ups — as well as government agencies and high-profile individuals in business, sports, entertainment and politics.

While the firm is known for its placement and shaping of some of the nation’s most important news stories, giving it access to the media that few firms can rival, perhaps even more telling are those that never show up in the media – traditional or digital – the result of Sitrick And Company having achieved the much more difficult task of keeping clients out of the news.

BBM.

 

[bessie]

The post you are responding to is not my post though I agree with it. For some reason the respective posters are getting screwed up as to who is attributed to each post.

At any rate, I suspect that Sitrick & Co.indeed are posting IMO - after all, that's what they do, in theory, for SDSO per their own website in listing their clients. Speaking of this fact, seems idiotic that SDSO or any of Sitrick clients would choose to display that they are clients of a reputation management company. Did I already say idiotic? Well, just don't get it unless SDSO doesn't realize they are on the client list. It's probably Sheriff Gore's Jan Caldwell responsible for administering Sitrick's services. She's a beaut.

Posters are "screwed up" because you guys continue to quote posts with incomplete quote tags (broken quotes).

 

[bessie]

In the post editor (box where you compose a post), a "quoted post" should look something like this:

[quote="postername, post: 123456"]blah, blah, blah[/QUOTE].

When you submit your post, the quoted post will look like this:

blah, blah, blah

But, if you omit the closing code tag [/QUOTE], you have "broken" the quote, and all succeeding posts which quote your post will be "screwed up".

SOLUTION:

• Ensure that a quoted post within your post is enclosed between the appropriate code tags.
• If you delete the code tags and don't know how to fix them, DO NOT quote the post. Delete it BEFORE you submit your post.
• Should you see a "broken quote", DO NOT quote the post. Immediately ALERT the post so a mod can repair the problem before it is repeated over and over and over again. It then becomes a major headache to straighten out.

Thanks.

Bessie

 

[bessie]

Please continue at the new Wrongful Death Suit - Thread #5.

 

[screecher]

Yes, LuckyLucky2, Adam's Demurrer was especially brilliant, cutting to the chase:

ESSENTIAL ARGUMENTS OF ADAM'S DEMURRER HIGHLIGHTED BY YOURS TRULY, burke_dennings:

After two years, during which Plaintiffs’ counsel have filed eight separate iterations of their complaint in federal and state court, the allegations before this Court remain insufficient and, therefore, the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend and the case should be dismissed with prejudice.

As explained in previous briefing, Rebecca Zahau’s tragic death was, after a thorough investigation by law enforcement, determined to be a suicide. Unable to accept this conclusion, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed parallel federal and state cases with nothing more than threadbare allegations that three individuals conspired to murder her. Yet after four years of investigation and four sets of counsel, the only allegation connecting Defendant Adam Shacknai to the purported conspiracy is based on a “belief” held by the Plaintiffs. Where an allegation is based on nothing more than a “belief,” it is black-letter law that the allegation must be accompanied by allegations setting forth facts upon which the belief is founded. Gomes v.Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149, 1159 (2011). The Second Amended Complaint, however, fails to make any such allegations.

After eight attempts to state a claim against Mr. Shacknai, enough is enough. This demurrer should be sustained, and this time, sustained without leave to amend.


IV. ARGUMENT

A. No Factual Basis Is Set Forth for the Allegations Against Mr. Shacknai.

As the Court explained in its May 1 order: “Allegations based on information and belief must set forth facts upon which the belief is founded. Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149, 1159; Dowling v. Spring Val. Water Co. (1917) 174 Cal. 218, 221.” Order at 4. Rader Decl. Ex. M at 4. Indeed, Gomes makes clear that “[a] pleading made on information and belief is insufficient if it merely asserts the facts so alleged without alleging such information that leads the plaintiff to believe that the allegations are true.” Id., 192 Cal. App. 4th at 1158.

Under this standard, the SAC is insufficient. Like the FAC, the allegations that connect Mr. Shacknai to the purported conspiracy remain unchanged—they are alleged only on information and belief. That is, the FAC alleges nothing more than: “Plaintiffs believe that at this time, ADAM, who . . . was sleeping in the guest house at the residence, was awakened by the commotion and came to the scene.” FAC ¶ 21 (emphasis added). Although the SAC has certain additional allegations as to the other defendants, there are none with respect to Mr. Shacknai. Rather, the SAC simply recycles the same sentence from the FAC, which this Court already has found insufficient: “Plaintiffs believe that at this time, ADAM, who . . . was sleeping in the guest house at the residence, was awakened by the commotion and came to the scene.” SAC ¶ 22 (emphasis added). Simply, the SAC utterly fails to allege any information that leads Plaintiffs (or their counsel) to believe this allegation is true. Therefore, Mr. Shacknai’s demurrer should be granted.[\B]

C. The Court Should Dismiss the Claims Against Mr. Shacknai With Prejudice.


The allegations of the SAC—which, between the various complaints submitted to this Court and in federal court, are in their eighth iteration—accuse Mr. Shacknai of a heinous crime. Yet after these myriad iterations, and after being directed by this Court to plead the facts that lead Plaintiffs and their counsel to include the allegations made on information and belief, the only allegation that supposedly connects Mr. Shacknai to the purported conspiracy has no factual basis.The SAC merely recites the same unsupported “belief” allegation from the defective prior complaint: “Plaintiffs believe that at this time, ADAM, who . . . was sleeping in the guest house at the, was awakened by the commotion and came to the scene.” SAC ¶ 22 (emphasis added).

Not only is responding to the various iterations of the complaint taking their toll on the defendants, so are the media reports. For example, on the same day as the August 1, 2014 CMC—at which the parties agreed the Plaintiffs would file an amended complaint before this Court—an article dappeared stating: “Attorneys for both sides will be back in court next January [i.e., January 2015] to set a trial date.” Rader Decl. Ex. O. The article quoted Plaintiffs’ counsel extensively, including with respect to the allegations as to Mr. Shacknai. Id. Most recently, approximately a week after the Court ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to re-plead the complaint, yet another article appeared about this case. Plaintiffs’ counsel “told NBC7 there is now a piece of evidence he thinks could be the key to this mysterious case: an audio recording of investigators interviewing a woman who was near the Spreckels Mansion before Zahau's body was discovered.” Id. Ex. P. It is unclear why this merited the coverage it received. Four years ago, Plaintiffs’ then-counsel was brandishing this exact information as “new compelling evidence” in support of her contention that the Decedent was murdered. Id. Ex. Q.

After eight iterations of the complaint spanning nearly two years in both federal and state court, Plaintiffs’ counsel have alleged nothing more than they “believe” Mr. Shacknai joined the purported conspiracy. At this point, the only conclusion to be drawn is that they have alleged nothing more because they cannot. As a matter of law, that a plaintiff “believes” someone committed a wrong is not enough to require someone to stand trial. Therefore, the SAC should be dismissed with prejudice.


V. CONCLUSION

After four years of investigation, four sets of counsel, and eight iterations of the complaint, Plaintiffs’ counsel have been unable to come forward with any allegation for including Mr. Shacknai as a defendant in this case other than a belief for which they have no factual basis. Therefore, the Complaint and each of its causes of action should be dismissed as to Mr. Shacknai, and dismissed with prejudice.


Dated: June 1, 2015 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

:laugh: