I really have to give credit to Attorney Greer and his associates for writing what I think is a very clear and concise Second Amended Complaint. Its easy to see that the legal writing, explanations, associations, and focus has clearly matured for this case.
The case, IMO, reads now as confident and logical, with clear associations between the 5 causes of action, and the legal principles, and the actions of the defendants. The assault cause of action (third cause of action) is now clearly against defendants Dina and Nina onlyas directed by the last court order.
They also clearly are heading off a war of experts in court, IMO, by leaving the door open as to whether Rebecca was already dead, or still alive when she was thrown over the balcony. Because its not a criminal case, I think thats a wise way to leave things. She died from manual strangulation just before, OR from the hanging/ asphyxiation once tossed off the balconyeither way the defendants would have known and intended Rebecca to die, and thats whats important in this kind of civil case, as I understand it.
I also appreciated the more definitively explained section on each of the plaintiffs, and why they have standing to bring the case, as well as who the defendants are, and why they are named as defendants. Despite what Nina said in the brief news coverage 3 weeks ago, it is clear in the complaint that she admitted to being there at Spreckles.
ALLEGATIONS OF SPECIFIC ACTS
ATTRIBUTED TO EACH DEFENDANT
Due to DINA's prior incidents of confronting and threatening
DECEDENT, DINA's prior history of being unable to control her anger, her
ridiculing and publicly demeaning the DECEDENT, before and after her death, for
allegedly causing harm and the eventual death of DINA's six-year-old son,
Maxfield, as well as her extreme jealousy over the DECEDENT's relationship with
her ex-husband, Jonah Shacknai, Plaintiffs allege, based in further part on an eye
witness report placing DINA at the Spreckels Mansion the evening of the murder at
approximately 10:20 PM, and based further on NINA's own admission placing her
at the Spreckels Mansion the evening of the murder at approximately 10:30 PM,
both individuals planned and intended to confront Rebecca Zahau over an accident
the prior day when DINA's son and NINA's nephew Maxfield fell over a second
floor railing at the Spreckels Mansion, causing him brain damage and eventually his
death on July 16, 2011. DECEDENT was babysitting Maxfield at the time of the
fall.
Page 7, Second Amended Complaint
(Line numbers removed for readability, and BBM.)
I also think everything alleged in the above section will be brought forth in court, including evidence of "Dina's prior incidents of confronting and threatening DECEDENT, Dina's prior history of being unable to control her anger, her ridiculing and publicly demeaning the DECEDENT, before and after her death..." etc. It's all coming in as evidence, IMO. Otherwise, they would never have spelled it out that specifically in the SAC.
The fifth cause of action, conversion (theft) is also now MUCH more clearly explained and connected. The theft of the clothes, of course, is a minimal dollar amount, but the concept of conversion, as I understand it, more fully encompasses the USE of the stolen personal property to achieve a personal benefit for the defendantsin this case, avoiding responsibility and detection for their actions in Rebeccas murder.
The wrongdoer converts the goods to his or her own use and excludes the owner from use and enjoyment of them. The English Common Law early recognized such an act as wrongful and, by the middle of the fifteenth century, allowed an action in Trover to compensate the aggrieved owner.
Today the word conversion is still applied to the unlawful taking or use of someone else's property. The type of property that can be converted is determined by the original nature of the Cause of Action. It must be personal property, because real property cannot be lost and then found. It must be tangible, such as money, an animal, furniture, tools, or receipts. Crops or timber can be subject to conversion after they are severed from the ground. The rights in a papersuch as a life insurance policy, a stock certificate, or a promissory notecan be converted by one who appropriates the paper itself.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conversion
Conversion, as a purely civil wrong, is distinguishable from both theft and unjust enrichment.
Theft is obviously an act inconsistent with another's rights, and theft will also be conversion. But not all conversions are thefts because conversion requires no element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. If one claims an unjust enrichment, the person who has another's property may always raise a change of position defense, to say they have unwittingly used up the assets they were transferred. For conversion, there always must be an element of voluntarily dealing with another's property, inconsistently with their rights.
Conversion has been described as a fascinating tort,[8] albeit one which has largely eluded the attention of legal writers. The literature frequently laps over into that of trover.
A conversion occurs when a person does such acts in reference to the personal property of another as amount, in view of the law, to his appropriating the property for himself.
An action for conversion does not rest on knowledge[79][80][81] or intent of the defendant.[82] The act constituting "conversion" must be an intentional act, but does not require wrongful intent, and is not excused by care, good faith, or lack of knowledge.[83] Fraudulent intent is not an element of conversion.[84] The defendant is answerable for the conversion, no matter how good his intentions were, or how careful he has been, or how apparently well-founded was his belief that his tortious act was right.[85][85][86][87] The existence of probable cause does not preclude liability.[88] A person may be liable for conversion even though he was reasonably mistaken in thinking the facts to be such as would give him a legal right to the goods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
(BBM above.)
And as a side note, I only noticed a very few spelling errors, so to me, that indicates that this SAC received a LOT of review and proof reading before being filed, AND that it was re-written/ amended and filed within the timeline parameters in the last order. IANAL, but this SAC looks to me (in my experience as a teacher) comparable to the evolution of a student thesis over timethe initial sloppy copies, and now a more fully formed and matured thesis. JMO.
