Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #3

[LuckyLucy2]

From page 5 of the Demurrer filed by Adam Shacknai's attorneys (available for viewing n post #843):

May 1, 2015: This Court Orders that the Allegations Be Re-Pled

After Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the FAC, defendant Adam Shacknai filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 1, 2015, this Court granted the motion “without leave to amend the assault claim and with leave to amend [as to] the remaining claims.” Rader Decl. Ex. M (May 1, 2015 Minute Order) at 2. Among other things, the Court noted that “Plaintiffs allege the following facts based on information and belief: . . . The commotion caused Adam, who was sleeping in the guest house, to wake up and come to the scene” and “At that point, the defendants conspired to kill Rebecca to hide their involvement.” Id. at 3 (citing ¶¶ 21, 22, and 24 of the FAC). After reviewing these allegations (and others), the Court held that they “fail[ed] to adequately set forth the basis of plaintiffs’ belief that defendants conspired to cause Rebecca’s death.” Id. at 4.

Epic fail, since the Zahaus just made stuff up to make 10 million dollars, IMO.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

From pages 8 and 9 of the Demurrer filed by Adam Shacknai's attorneys (available for viewing in post #843):


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 residence, 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 appeared 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.

V. CONCLUSION

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.

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.

**************
I predict the court will agree with this Demurrer and this case will finally be over. I just hope the Judge makes the Zahaus pay all the costs incurred by the Defendants. Only then will Justice be served.

 

[screecher]

Hello my fellow posters :thinking: here.

WE know Dina Shacknai & Nina Romano are transparent as Saran Wrap. WE know the pair are angry, hateful, deflective, have NO alibi and are :liar:, :liar:

OTOH, WE really don't know much about the third defendant, Adam Shacknai. However, WE do know:

1. 'REBECCA'S TAXI' picks him up from the airport late Tuesday afternoon.

2. WE do know there is no evidence of him visiting his nephew.

3. WE do know he watched .

4. WE do know listening to his 911 call and watching the interview at the cop shop, he certainly seems a bit strange (at least to me).

5. WE do know his truth/lying exam was inconclusive, was supposed to take another, under the recommendation of Redden (never did).

I'm certain the two women defendants know Adam pretty well. Anyone besides me think one or both of the women threatened, intimidated, coerced Adam into helping them to finish off their unspeakable act against Rebecca?

 

[screecher]

What I don't know regarding Adam's visit to Coronado:

1. Where did he go after being interviewed and lied detected?
2. Who picked him up?
3. Where was he taken?
4. When did he leave Coronado?
5. How did he leave Coronado?
6. Is he still the boss man on a barge?
7. Where does he currently live?

Anyone here know the answers?

 

[K_Z]

New entries today on San Diego ROA-- Adam Shacknai's Case Management Statement (#178, linked below), and proof of service (#179, not linked).

Adam's Case Management Statement (5 pages):

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...5_Case_Management_Statement_1433909090864.pdf

A couple key points-- Adam has received the Alternative Dispute Resolution packet, and is willing to participate in mediation. (Page 2-3)

And this item:

18. Other issues

[{] The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify):

On June 3, 2015 the federal court denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings. There is a Case Management Conference set for July 10, 2015 and a Rule 26(f) conference must be completed by June 18, 2015. A Joint Discovery Plan must be lodged by June 25, 2015 and Initial disclosures must occur by June 25, 2015 as well.

The plaintiff's request to stay the federal case was denied (available on PACER), so the federal case continues in parallel to the state case, AFAIK. The federal case was not dismissed.

 

[screecher]

Yaaay. The Zahau family will hopefully learn crucial information/details of what the hell went down that night.

From the very beginning, I thought AS would be the first to be open to mediation/settlement. I suspect NR will follow.

This is beyond awesome :happydance:

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Hello my fellow posters :thinking: here.

WE know Dina Shacknai & Nina Romano are transparent as Saran Wrap. WE know the pair are angry, hateful, deflective, have NO alibi and are :liar:, :liar:

OTOH, WE really don't know much about the third defendant, Adam Shacknai. However, WE do know:

1. 'REBECCA'S TAXI' picks him up from the airport late Tuesday afternoon.

2. WE do know there is no evidence of him visiting his nephew.

3. WE do know he watched .

4. WE do know listening to his 911 call and watching the interview at the cop shop, he certainly seems a bit strange (at least to me).

5. WE do know his truth/lying exam was inconclusive, was supposed to take another, under the recommendation of Redden (never did).

I'm certain the two women defendants know Adam pretty well. Anyone besides me think one or both of the women threatened, intimidated, coerced Adam into helping them to finish off their unspeakable act against Rebecca?

None of the above links Adam or Dina or Nina to Rebecca's suicide. All three were throughly investigated by Detectives and found to be uninvolved.

http://sdsheriff.net/coronado/

IMO, it is horrible how some posters here have tried to drag these innocent people down and have said the most outrageous, disgusting things about these victims of Rebecca Zahau's actions.

Rebecca Zahau committed suicde, a feat that was easily recreated bt San Diego News10 in less than thirty minutes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AfBxOHmufnY

The recreation was accomplished by Criminal Justice Student Patricia Lanham, and only took her a half an hour. Patricia was 5' 2 3/4" and weighs,115 pounds. She had no trouble painting note on door.

Report also says noose knot was just a simple slip knot.

This is the same recreation in which the bed moved out (because it was not the same bed or carpet as in the real suicide room). That is why the Zahaus put in the ridiculous bit about Dina and Nina sitting on the bed to keep it from moving in their made up charges. So stupid.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

New entries today on San Diego ROA-- Adam Shacknai's Case Management Statement (#178, linked below), and proof of service (#179, not linked).

Adam's Case Management Statement (5 pages):

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...5_Case_Management_Statement_1433909090864.pdf

A couple key points-- Adam has received the Alternative Dispute Resolution packet, and is willing to participate in mediation. (Page 2-3)

And this item:



The plaintiff's request to stay the federal case was denied (available on PACER), so the federal case decontinues in parallel to the state case, AFAIK. The federal case was not dismissed.

If the Federal Court denied the Zahaus request to stay the Federal case, that means it will be dismissed. So I disagree with your assessment.

And note that Adam is willing to mediate, but not to settle.. That is because he is innocent of any involvement in Rebecca Zahau's crazy, selfish suicide.

No free money for the greedy, dishonest Zahaus from Adam!

 

[Inparadise]

What I don't know regarding Adam's visit to Coronado:

1. Where did he go after being interviewed and lied detected?
2. Who picked him up?
3. Where was he taken?
4. When did he leave Coronado?
5. How did he leave Coronado?
6. Is he still the boss man on a barge?
7. Where does he currently live?

Anyone here know the answers?

Adam left Memphis on a mid-morning flight on Continental Airlines, connecting through Houston, arriving in San Diego at 4 pm. He was picked up by Rebecca (who had just dropped off her sister to return to Missouri) and driven to RCH. Not sure when he left town, but he did have a return ticket (coach). <modsnip>.....the property that he purchased in January, 2012.

 

[K_Z]

18. Other issues

[{] The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify):

On June 3, 2015 the federal court denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings. There is a Case Management Conference set for July 10, 2015 and a Rule 26(f) conference must be completed by June 18, 2015. A Joint Discovery Plan must be lodged by June 25, 2015 and Initial disclosures must occur by June 25, 2015 as well.

Just to note, the Rule 26 (f) conference and dates that are referenced in the above passage from the Adam's State Case Management Statement refers to the progress of the Federal case.

There is no indication, at this time, that the Federal case is going to be imminently dismissed. Because of the Rule 26 (f) conference dates, and the Joint Discovery Plan, all indications are that the Federal case IS, and WILL continue to progress, for the time being.

I think if the federal case were going to be dismissed shortly on a technicality, there would be no need for compliance with Rule 26 (f) discovery procedures in the next 2-3 weeks or so. Certainly this federal case could be dismissed at some point in the future (as all civil cases could be), but this particular case appears to be working its way through the process. Both the State and Federal cases are continuing to move along.

And by the way, do I remember correctly that Dina was in support of the plaintiff's request to stay the Federal case proceedings?

If we all remember back to the Federal case earlier days, discovery was just about to commence in that case when the State case began moving forward. Dina had added attorneys to her federal case team in anticipation (IMO) of the discovery process in the Federal case. Then the plaintiffs requested a stay in the Federal case while the State case moved along, since discovery was already going on in that case. So, the stay was denied just recently in the Federal case, and the discovery process is resuming. That's my interpretation, FWIW! Nothing at all points to imminent dismissal of the Federal case, IMO.

This explains Rule 26 (f) discovery process in California. Rule 26 conferences also include expert witness disclosures, along with other discovery requirements.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

This is an example of an outline template of the CA format requested for the Central District (this case is in the Southern District, but all are very similar online):

http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/2fb080863c88ab47882567c9007fa070/fd063442150e12a3882579f5006b081e/$FILE/OrderSettingSchedConfRVSD.pdf

 

[LuckyLucy2]

As to the Zahaus claim that the "murderers" put on gloves and cleaned up the scene?

10 News on the night of Press Conference, interviewed Retired San Diego Detective Rick Carlson.

He said it was clear it was only Zahau as there were no other footprints and no one made any attempt to clean up the scene.



https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLlcw1SkqH4r3aBMrA2gjpOHFQ8PYQdPwS&v=PlYAB3-tZ-Y

 

[LuckyLucy2]

The State court warned the Zahaus they needed to have some factual evidence to continue the case, which they were unable to do in their eighth iteration of their claims. I have no doubt it will be dismissed, as will the Federal case.

"After eight iterations of thee complaint spanning nearly two years in both federal and state court, Plaintiffs&#8217; counsel have alleged nothing more than they &#8220;believe&#8221; 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 &#8220;believes&#8221; someone committed a wrong is not enough to require someone to stand trial. Therefore, the SAC should be dismissed with prejudice.

After four years of investigation, four sets of counsel, and eight iterations of the complaint, Plaintiffs&#8217; 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."

 

[K_Z]

The State court warned the Zahaus they needed to have some factual evidence to continue the case, which they were unable to do in their eighth iteration of their claims. I have no doubt it will be dismissed, as will the Federal case.

"After eight iterations of thee 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.

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."

BBM for focus.

That's an incorrect interpretation. No, the State court did not "warn" the Zahaus.

Your quote is from Adam's 151 page declaration, written by his attorney. It represents Adam and his attorneys perspective. It is not an opinion or finding issued by the State court judge.

 

[justice be served]

BBM for focus.

That's an incorrect interpretation. No, the State court did not "warn" the Zahaus.

Your quote is from Adam's 151 page declaration, written by his attorney. It represents Adam and his attorneys perspective. It is not an opinion or finding issued by the State court judge.

Thank you K_Z. I earlier asked Lucky to reference a link where this 'bolded' comment was made up thread and received nothing back. I appreciate your getting to the truth and cleaning up the mishmash of so many incorrect statements being made.

 

[justice be served]

New entries today on San Diego ROA-- Adam Shacknai's Case Management Statement (#178, linked below), and proof of service (#179, not linked).

Adam's Case Management Statement (5 pages):

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...5_Case_Management_Statement_1433909090864.pdf

A couple key points-- Adam has received the Alternative Dispute Resolution packet, and is willing to participate in mediation. (Page 2-3)

And this item:



The plaintiff's request to stay the federal case was denied (available on PACER), so the federal case continues in parallel to the state case, AFAIK. The federal case was not dismissed.

Thank you K_Z for again paying to have the documents available for everyone and your interpretation.

And also a thank you to AZLawyer for the 'thank you' on K_Z's post. You are immensely and immeasurably appreciated to this forum!!!!

 

[*Lash*]

KZ, you're correct. Dina supported the stay in the Federal case. It is mentioned in the recent order denying the stay in the federal case. Dina's reasoning was because she needed federal subpoena powers. Remember Dina claimed to need this power for the purpose of obtaining the Rady video surveillance allegedly being held by the FBI or DOJ.

B. Defendant Dina Shacknai Has Not Established a Need for Federal Subpoena Power&#8232;

Defendant Dina Shacknai argues that this action should proceed because her defense will be prejudiced if she doesn’t have access to Federal subpoena authority. This is simply not true. &#8232;

1. The Evidence Defendant Seeks in Coronado Police Department Custody

Defendant Dina Shacknai argues that the surveillance taken by Rady Children’s Hospital the night Rebecca Zahau was killed will establish that she was not at the scene of the hanging, and that it is being held by the Department of Justice. However, the 27 CDs from Rady’s Children’s Hospital were produced to the Coronado Police Department pursuant to subpoena, and are currently held as Item 10 in the Coronado Police Departments evidence storage. (Greer Decl., ¶ 5, pg.3). Although Defendant argues that state court processes to obtain the disks have been futile, there is no evidence submitted to support the argument. &#8232;


Page 4, Federal Doc 64

https://www.pacer.gov

 

[LuckyLucy2]

From page 5 of the Demurrer filed by Adam Shacknai's attorneys (available for viewing in post #843):

May 1, 2015: This Court Orders that the Allegations Be Re-Pled

After Plaintiffs&#8217; counsel filed the FAC, defendant Adam Shacknai filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 1, 2015, this Court granted the motion &#8220;without leave to amend the assault claim and with leave to amend [as to] the remaining claims.&#8221; Rader Decl. Ex. M (May 1, 2015 Minute Order) at 2.

Among other things, the Court noted that &#8220;Plaintiffs allege the following facts based on information and belief: . . . The commotion caused Adam, who was sleeping in the guest house, to wake up and come to the scene&#8221; and &#8220;At that point, the defendants conspired to kill Rebecca to hide their involvement.&#8221; Id. at 3 (citing ¶¶ 21, 22, and 24 of the FAC).

After reviewing these allegations (and others), the Court held that they &#8220;fail[ed] to adequately set forth the basis of plaintiffs&#8217; belief that defendants conspired to cause Rebecca&#8217;s death.&#8221; Id. at 4.



Yes, KZ, you are right. The Court did not warn; they ordered. And justicebeserved, this is the second time I have posted this.

 

[*Lash*]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL

DATE: 05/01/2015
TIME: 01:30:00 PM
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER - ROA document 163

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...A-163_05-01-15_Minute_Order_1430827515163.pdf

ETA - I made a post in the lawyer thread for AZlawyer's opinion on the minute order.

Bumping the state Minute Order from May...the judges accurate wording .

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Thanks for posting that, Lash. It confirms what Adam's attorneys wrote.

On page 4, it states:

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. The SAC fails to adequately set forth the basis for plaintiffs' belief that defendants conspired to cause Rebecca's death.

 

[IQuestion]

Hello my fellow posters :thinking: here.

WE know Dina Shacknai & Nina Romano are transparent as Saran Wrap. WE know the pair are angry, hateful, deflective, have NO alibi and are :liar:, :liar:

OTOH, WE really don't know much about the third defendant, Adam Shacknai. However, WE do know:

1. 'REBECCA'S TAXI' picks him up from the airport late Tuesday afternoon.

2. WE do know there is no evidence of him visiting his nephew.

3. WE do know he watched .

4. WE do know listening to his 911 call and watching the interview at the cop shop, he certainly seems a bit strange (at least to me).

5. WE do know his truth/lying exam was inconclusive, was supposed to take another, under the recommendation of Redden (never did).

I'm certain the two women defendants know Adam pretty well. Anyone besides me think one or both of the women threatened, intimidated, coerced Adam into helping them to finish off their unspeakable act against Rebecca?

(all my question relate to items BBM'd above)
Screech....I have to admit I do agree with a lot of your comments....but I think it is patently unfair to criticize SARAN WRAP.
I thought Adam was dropped off at the hospital to meet with his brother & DR.L on Tuesday afternoon.
Ah geez, I am going to slap my own forehead.....I JUST GOT WHAT YOU WERE IMPLYING..... If Adam did not go into the PICU to see his nephew, then he would have been unaware of how serious his condition was. And, if he was unaware of the gravity of the situation, he had no "prior intent" to hurt Rebecca.
(Am I following your reasoning correctly?) And, the 911 call in which Adam begins, "Gotta girl, hung herself."
Holy Toledo....who talks like that? Where's the panic? Where's the shock, the disbelief? How can anyone come to that instantaneous conclusion when they have NEVER seen anything like that before?
I never thought Nina had the "psychological insight" to manipulate Adam. I do think she is incredibly loyal to her sister. So loyal in fact, she would be willing to cast doubt on the eye witness who reported seeing Dina in front of the Ocean property, by saying we are twins. (very different in appearance.) I think she saw something as she looked through the gate,
something so shocking she TURNED TAIL (stole the term from LL2), hiked her yoga pants and w-r-i-s-t-l-e-t back to the G St house, and went "right to bed."

Open question to fellow posters....Has anyone seen "the date" and mode of payment for the "receipt for paint supplies"
on the search warrant? If someone was planning to commit suicide, and paint a cryptic message....why would you need more than ONE TUBE of paint?
If the paint was purchased before X's arrival, it may have been a planned gift? And, I would expect paint supplies to be in the North facing room of any home studio, anyway. The rope and knives....NO WAY! (Sorry if my last question is OT.)