Curiosity Never Kills the Cat: Legal Questions for VERIFIED LAWYERS- ~No Discussion~

[AZlawyer]

Thanks. I was wondering if the fact that Pari Zahau is named separately as a plaintiff, would her residence in Missouri be regarded differently. RZ's father's estate is also named as a plaintiff. I may be splitting hairs on this, but was just curious.

No. If Dina is a citizen of AZ and Rebecca was a citizen of AZ when she died, then the case will be kicked out of federal court. Unless Dina is dropped as a defendant, but what are the chances of that?

 

[MaybeNotToday]

No. If Dina is a citizen of AZ and Rebecca was a citizen of AZ when she died, then the case will be kicked out of federal court. Unless Dina is dropped as a defendant, but what are the chances of that?

Can you speculate why the diversity issue was overlooked? Could it be a strategy of some kind? Thank you!

 

[AZlawyer]

Can you speculate why the diversity issue was overlooked? Could it be a strategy of some kind? Thank you!

My best guess is that someone didn't think carefully enough about the issue of the decedent's state citizenship. There certainly would be no strategic purpose.

 

[bourne]

My best guess is that someone didn't think carefully enough about the issue of the decedent's state citizenship. There certainly would be no strategic purpose.

How are ordinary citizens such as the Zahaus supposed to obtain state citizenship statuses of other private citizens such as Dina, Nina, Adam, etc.?

One would think that legal statutes regarding privacy issues would preclude ordinary private citizens from obtaining legal residency statuses of other private citizens, correct? Furthermore, unless a private citizen is able to obtain TAX documents of another private citizen, then, at best, a private citizen may be able to GUESS where another private citizen's state residency is based on the domicile address of where the other private citizen tends to reside much of the year...

Are attorneys who file WDS on behalf of private citizens automatically allowed to secure legal residency information on defendants in the suit?

 

[bourne]

Just read the Motions to Dismiss documents by the 3 prime defendants. In particular, Dina's mention on page 5 of 13 that the "Plaintiff Estate of Rebecca Zahau lacks both Constitutional and statutory standing on the first and second causes of action."

Why would Rebecca's estate (and the estate of her father and her other family members) lack Constitutional standing? I thought you had said WDS can be brought forth against a person/party by anyone who felt a death of their loved one was caused (whether by negligence, etc.) by that person/party?

Re: Statutory standing. I take it that that refers to FRCP 12(b)(1) which speaks about the need for state citizenship diversity of parties for federal court jurisdiction?

As Betty P had asked in a Q above, doesn't the fact that there are MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS in the suit, not only the "Estate of Rebecca Zahau", but ALSO "Estate of the father Zahau" and the mother of Rebecca, AND Mary Zahau-Loeher as FOUR separate PLAINTIFFS, the latter three of whom are residents of states other than AZ satisfy this diversity of citizenship argument for federal jurisdiction?

I can see if the plaintiff is merely ONE by the Estate of Rebecca Zahau alone, then since Rebecca last resided in AZ and that she might have filed her taxes in AZ (although perhaps she last continued to file as a taxpayer in MO since she might have only been employed in AZ for a short time prior to meeting Jonah and leaving her employment? Anyone knows?) that her WDS may lack the diversity requirement. However, the Estate of the father Zahau (as well as the plaintiffs as mother Zahau and sister Mary) should be sufficient for diversity purposes as he and the other parties of his estate, namely, his wife, his other children reside in MO or Germany, correct?

Another Q I have is: Can the Judge or the Zahau lawyers drop the "Estate of Rebecca Zahau" as a plaintiff in the WDS, but allow the Estate of the father Zahau and the other plaintiffs to stand in the WDS? That way, the diversity issue is fulfilled. Is there a law against the dropping of one plaintiff from the WDS? I am aware that if a plaintiff passes away in a civil suit, his/her estate can then legally continue to pursue the suit in the decedant's place.

TIA!

 

[Mrs. Holmes]

I have a couple questions about the Zahau civil suit against San Diego county, that seeks (among other things) return of Rebecca’s personal property.

There is a list of items being requested in their lawsuit against the County(link to filing below). Presumably, some or all of these items are desired by the plaintiffs, because they are valuable evidence for their 2nd civil case, the wrongful death lawsuit.

I suspect they wanted some, or all, of the items in order to have a more complete explanation in their WDS filing. And I suspect that since they didn’t get them in time, they were worried about the statute of limitations running out as the deadline approached in July, so they went ahead and filed the WDS to avoid missing the deadline. Do you think this could be a correct interpretation?

It is my understanding that some of the items requested that are “personal property” should have been returned to the family a very long time ago, since the case was officially ruled a suicide and closed.

The first civil case against the County was filed 8 May 2013, and is ongoing. The next hearing is November 1, 2013.

Here are a couple posts with links to the civil suit against the county.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Zahau Family Sues County for Additional Evidence


Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Zahau Family Sues County for Additional Evidence


1. If there is a “discovery” item requested in the wrongful death suit that is on the unfulfilled list in the civil case against the County, could that item be compelled by the judge in the wrongful death case if requested by the plaintiff attorneys? (Or will this be a turf battle between 2 jurisdictions-- state and federal?)

2. Does the progress of the WDS “compel” certain items to be made available that might be requested as evidence, rather than simply personal property that is wanted by the family to be returned? (By that, I mean would the WDS take some kind of precedence over the unresolved civil suit against the county?)

3. Would the first civil case against the county have to be resolved in order for the items to be available to the plaintiffs (or defendants) in the wrongful death civil lawsuit? The items listed could be of interest to both the plaintiffs and defendants.

I guess what I’m asking is if the wrongful death suit will make it any easier for the plaintiffs to gain access to the items they requested in the lawsuit against the county? Does the progress of either lawsuit affect the other?

I hope I explained my questions clearly enough!

As always, thank you in advance for your willingness to answer questions! Very much appreciated!

I really want to know the answers to this myself. So I am bumping this up as it may have been missed.

IMO.... it seems almost deliberate that the information/items requested are being held back... these items could at the least be used in the civil suite. Why in the world would they not release them? Has this ever happened before?

 

[Betty P]

How are ordinary citizens such as the Zahaus supposed to obtain state citizenship statuses of other private citizens such as Dina, Nina, Adam, etc.?

One would think that legal statutes regarding privacy issues would preclude ordinary private citizens from obtaining legal residency statuses of other private citizens, correct? Furthermore, unless a private citizen is able to obtain TAX documents of another private citizen, then, at best, a private citizen may be able to GUESS where another private citizen's state residency is based on the domicile address of where the other private citizen tends to reside much of the year...

Are attorneys who file WDS on behalf of private citizens automatically allowed to secure legal residency information on defendants in the suit?

That's a good point. I just don't think the Zahau family attorneys haven't already researched the residency issues prior to making the decision to file in federal court. IMHO, they feel confident the facts of everyone's residency status will allow them to move forward. It's also significant that the judge assigned to hear the case is interested in seeing it move forward.

 

[screecher]

How are ordinary citizens...supposed to obtain...statuses of other private citizens such as Dina, Nina, Adam, etc.?
...?

snipped by me

Flip the tables on them? Hire PI's ? Bwahahaha

Sorry, I had to say it :floorlaugh:

Happy to see you back!

 

[bourne]

snipped by me

Flip the tables on them? Hire PI's ? Bwahahaha

Sorry, I had to say it :floorlaugh:

Happy to see you back!

:seeya: Thank you! I really needed the break. There was too much gratuitious :drama: and it felt like like we were going around and around :treadmill: and beating a :deadhorse: LOL

 

[MaybeNotToday]

That's a good point. I just don't think the Zahau family attorneys haven't already researched the residency issues prior to making the decision to file in federal court. IMHO, they feel confident the facts of everyone's residency status will allow them to move forward. It's also significant that the judge assigned to hear the case is interested in seeing it move forward.

I believe it was Rebecca's state of citizenship that the lawyers didn't know. I may be wrong- it's confusing to me.

 

[bourne]

That's a good point. I just don't think the Zahau family attorneys haven't already researched the residency issues prior to making the decision to file in federal court. IMHO, they feel confident the facts of everyone's residency status will allow them to move forward. It's also significant that the judge assigned to hear the case is interested in seeing it move forward.

Agreed! I was discussing the federal jurisdiction issue with friends and we don't know why the Zahau lawyers would not have ascertained the "complete diversity" requirement before filing in federal court particularly because "federal" matters generally implies "interstate commerce" requirements.

The only things we can come up with why the Zahau lawyers went ahead and filed federally are that: a) Rebecca was NOT an AZ resident (she might still have been filing taxes as a MO resident and/or she was still legally married to her ex-hubby and they filed taxes jointly in his state of residence which was not AZ; b) Dina's legal residency could not be established in AZ because she claims ownership of homes in multiple states; c) they had anticipated the complete diversity problem but felt because the murder happened in CA and if Rebecca was an AZ resident, then they could reasonably argue for federal jurisdiction in front of a judge. I have to say, either a, b, or c, or truly, incompetence on part of the Zahau lawyers -- in which case, the Zahaus should have a legal right to re-file the WDS in spite of the statute of limitations deadline due to incompetent lawyers.

I believe by law, if lawyers are found to be grossly negligent in representing their clients and the law dictates that clients are entitled to adequate representation in court, the Zahaus would still be entitled to have their day in court with more suitable lawyers *despite that the statute of limitation has expired* because the Zahaus DID file the WDS prior to the appropriate deadline. Is this a correct interpretation of the law, AZlawyer?

 

[bourne]

Hi AZlawyer,

I am trying to understand particulars of Dina's second filing of the Motion to Dismiss.

In it is written the following:

"In this case, there is simply not a single allegation or reasonable inference from any allegation that the Estate of RZ suffered any injury at all. California defines an estate as a description of "the property comprising the assets of a deceased."

To allege Article III injury, the Estate would have to allege some injury to the "assets and liabilities" of the Estate of RZ.

Indeed, because the Estate of RZ, if it actually and legally exists at all, necessarily came into existence only after the death of Ms. RZ, it would be definition, have to allege the occurrence of some event subsequent to the death of Ms. RZ that caused an injury to the assets and liabilities that comprise the Estate. But no such allegations appear in the Complaint."

To me, this is VERY insulting to Rebecca. Does this mean what I'm interpreting it to mean -- which is that Dina and her lawyers consider Rebecca's estate to be *worthless* because monetary-wise, Rebecca might have owned very little tangible/financial assets prior to her death?

Can you explain what an "Estate" of a decedent entails? Does it by law, only mean, a decedent's financial assets/liabiltiies prior to death? Or is it what I've always perceived it to mean, which is that an "Estate" is simply a legal term used in court to describe a party/decedent and their family members and whatever financial worth a party/decedent could have possibly gained in life had they survived and post-mortem (e.g., investments that continue to accrue after their death plus assets/liabilities in the decedent's name)?

I think if a decedant's worth is equated with their financial worth prior to their death, then NO wrongful death suits can be brought on behalf of CHILDREN born to poor families because unless the child came from a family of financial riches, how much $asset can that child own/hold? That would mean the law DISCRIMINATES against poor people and their children, which I find to be wholly UNJUST and doesn't appear to be how the law operates because there are many poor minorities who have successfully won WDS in the order of multimillions.

So, what exactly is Dina's motion claiming re: Rebecca's estate?

 

[MyBelle]

I believe it was Rebecca's state of citizenship that the lawyers didn't know. I may be wrong- it's confusing to me.

Hopefully, AZ lawyer will weigh in but it appears to me the lawyers simply left it out. The omission is, to me, a sign the lawyers knew.

JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

How are ordinary citizens such as the Zahaus supposed to obtain state citizenship statuses of other private citizens such as Dina, Nina, Adam, etc.?

One would think that legal statutes regarding privacy issues would preclude ordinary private citizens from obtaining legal residency statuses of other private citizens, correct? Furthermore, unless a private citizen is able to obtain TAX documents of another private citizen, then, at best, a private citizen may be able to GUESS where another private citizen's state residency is based on the domicile address of where the other private citizen tends to reside much of the year...

Are attorneys who file WDS on behalf of private citizens automatically allowed to secure legal residency information on defendants in the suit?

If you don't know the citizenship, you allege "on information and belief" what you believe it to be. If there's a dispute on that issue, there can be an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there's jurisdiction.

 

[AZlawyer]

Just read the Motions to Dismiss documents by the 3 prime defendants. In particular, Dina's mention on page 5 of 13 that the "Plaintiff Estate of Rebecca Zahau lacks both Constitutional and statutory standing on the first and second causes of action."

Why would Rebecca's estate (and the estate of her father and her other family members) lack Constitutional standing? I thought you had said WDS can be brought forth against a person/party by anyone who felt a death of their loved one was caused (whether by negligence, etc.) by that person/party?

Re: Statutory standing. I take it that that refers to FRCP 12(b)(1) which speaks about the need for state citizenship diversity of parties for federal court jurisdiction?

As Betty P had asked in a Q above, doesn't the fact that there are MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS in the suit, not only the "Estate of Rebecca Zahau", but ALSO "Estate of the father Zahau" and the mother of Rebecca, AND Mary Zahau-Loeher as FOUR separate PLAINTIFFS, the latter three of whom are residents of states other than AZ satisfy this diversity of citizenship argument for federal jurisdiction?

I can see if the plaintiff is merely ONE by the Estate of Rebecca Zahau alone, then since Rebecca last resided in AZ and that she might have filed her taxes in AZ (although perhaps she last continued to file as a taxpayer in MO since she might have only been employed in AZ for a short time prior to meeting Jonah and leaving her employment? Anyone knows?) that her WDS may lack the diversity requirement. However, the Estate of the father Zahau (as well as the plaintiffs as mother Zahau and sister Mary) should be sufficient for diversity purposes as he and the other parties of his estate, namely, his wife, his other children reside in MO or Germany, correct?

Another Q I have is: Can the Judge or the Zahau lawyers drop the "Estate of Rebecca Zahau" as a plaintiff in the WDS, but allow the Estate of the father Zahau and the other plaintiffs to stand in the WDS? That way, the diversity issue is fulfilled. Is there a law against the dropping of one plaintiff from the WDS? I am aware that if a plaintiff passes away in a civil suit, his/her estate can then legally continue to pursue the suit in the decedant's place.

TIA!

The "Constitutional standing" argument is kind of silly--they are complaining, as far as I can tell, that the plaintiff was listed as "Estate of Rebecca Zahau," represented by her personal representative, instead of "Mrs. X, in her capacity as Personal Representative of Rebecca Zahau." This is totally correctable and not a big deal.

The "statutory standing" argument has to do with a requirement of California law that a certain affidavit must be filed by the personal representative. I don't know whether this would really be required in federal court, but in any event the deficiency can probably be corrected.

As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, there must be COMPLETE diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction in this case--SOME diversity is no good. In other words, no one on the plaintiff side can have the same state citizenship of anyone on the defendant side.

It is possible that the Zahaus could drop the "survival action" part of the case (brought by the personal representative of Rebecca's estate) and just leave the action brought by her heirs. They would only do this IMO if the judge indicates that he/she plans to dismiss the entire case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

 

[AZlawyer]

I really want to know the answers to this myself. So I am bumping this up as it may have been missed.

IMO.... it seems almost deliberate that the information/items requested are being held back... these items could at the least be used in the civil suite. Why in the world would they not release them? Has this ever happened before?

I answered the question you quoted on p. 6 of the thread.

I don't really know what items are being held back and why, so I can't comment on that issue further.

 

[AZlawyer]

Agreed! I was discussing the federal jurisdiction issue with friends and we don't know why the Zahau lawyers would not have ascertained the "complete diversity" requirement before filing in federal court particularly because "federal" matters generally implies "interstate commerce" requirements.

The only things we can come up with why the Zahau lawyers went ahead and filed federally are that: a) Rebecca was NOT an AZ resident (she might still have been filing taxes as a MO resident and/or she was still legally married to her ex-hubby and they filed taxes jointly in his state of residence which was not AZ; b) Dina's legal residency could not be established in AZ because she claims ownership of homes in multiple states; c) they had anticipated the complete diversity problem but felt because the murder happened in CA and if Rebecca was an AZ resident, then they could reasonably argue for federal jurisdiction in front of a judge. I have to say, either a, b, or c, or truly, incompetence on part of the Zahau lawyers -- in which case, the Zahaus should have a legal right to re-file the WDS in spite of the statute of limitations deadline due to incompetent lawyers.

I believe by law, if lawyers are found to be grossly negligent in representing their clients and the law dictates that clients are entitled to adequate representation in court, the Zahaus would still be entitled to have their day in court with more suitable lawyers *despite that the statute of limitation has expired* because the Zahaus DID file the WDS prior to the appropriate deadline. Is this a correct interpretation of the law, AZlawyer?

IIRC, the Complaint affirmatively stated that both Rebecca and Dina were citizens of AZ, which to me suggested that the lawyers didn't realize the combination of those allegations was fatal to their case.

If a lawyer negligently handles a court case and the case is lost for that reason, normally the client does NOT get a "pass." This is particularly true for things like federal jurisdiction and statutes of limitations, which judges are not free to ignore. Normally the client's remedy is to sue the attorney for malpractice.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZlawyer,

I am trying to understand particulars of Dina's second filing of the Motion to Dismiss.

In it is written the following:

"In this case, there is simply not a single allegation or reasonable inference from any allegation that the Estate of RZ suffered any injury at all. California defines an estate as a description of "the property comprising the assets of a deceased."

To allege Article III injury, the Estate would have to allege some injury to the "assets and liabilities" of the Estate of RZ.

Indeed, because the Estate of RZ, if it actually and legally exists at all, necessarily came into existence only after the death of Ms. RZ, it would be definition, have to allege the occurrence of some event subsequent to the death of Ms. RZ that caused an injury to the assets and liabilities that comprise the Estate. But no such allegations appear in the Complaint."

To me, this is VERY insulting to Rebecca. Does this mean what I'm interpreting it to mean -- which is that Dina and her lawyers consider Rebecca's estate to be *worthless* because monetary-wise, Rebecca might have owned very little tangible/financial assets prior to her death?

Can you explain what an "Estate" of a decedent entails? Does it by law, only mean, a decedent's financial assets/liabiltiies prior to death? Or is it what I've always perceived it to mean, which is that an "Estate" is simply a legal term used in court to describe a party/decedent and their family members and whatever financial worth a party/decedent could have possibly gained in life had they survived and post-mortem (e.g., investments that continue to accrue after their death plus assets/liabilities in the decedent's name)?

I think if a decedant's worth is equated with their financial worth prior to their death, then NO wrongful death suits can be brought on behalf of CHILDREN born to poor families because unless the child came from a family of financial riches, how much $asset can that child own/hold? That would mean the law DISCRIMINATES against poor people and their children, which I find to be wholly UNJUST and doesn't appear to be how the law operates because there are many poor minorities who have successfully won WDS in the order of multimillions.

So, what exactly is Dina's motion claiming re: Rebecca's estate?

They were not saying anything at all about the financial worth of Rebecca's estate. They were just saying (in a not-very-clear way IMO) that the plaintiff should have been "Mrs. X, in her capacity as personal representative of Rebecca Zahau" instead of "the Estate of Rebecca Zahau, represented by its personal representative Mrs. X."

 

[AZlawyer]

I believe it was Rebecca's state of citizenship that the lawyers didn't know. I may be wrong- it's confusing to me.

Hopefully, AZ lawyer will weigh in but it appears to me the lawyers simply left it out. The omission is, to me, a sign the lawyers knew.

JMO

The lawyers didn't leave out Rebecca's state of citizenship. They said it was AZ--which would destroy federal jurisdiction. The only explanation I can think of is that they thought that the important issue was the citizenship of the personal representative rather than the citizenship of the decedent.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

The lawyers didn't leave out Rebecca's state of citizenship. They said it was AZ--which would destroy federal jurisdiction. The only explanation I can think of is that they thought that the important issue was the citizenship of the personal representative rather than the citizenship of the decedent.

It is REALLY hard for me to believe these attorneys didn't know the difference- but what other reason could it be?
That's why I wondered if this was just a tactic. Last ditch effort to file something before SOL runs out. As if they knew it would get hung up in procedural. But Why? Bluffing? Publicity? Scare tactic? (kind of reminds me of their request to get into JS mansion thinking he would decline )

Either they are masterminding or incompetent.