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

[MyBelle]

BBM. I agree.

The other 2 defendants have been keeping a low profile. AS hasn't filed anything since a case management statement back in December, (12-24-14). NR filed a demurrer/ motion to strike 12-09-14, and a form to add an attorney 1-20-15.

From my cursory and completely non-scientific estimates, DS files about 10 documents/ motions for every one filed by NR or AS. She has emerged as the leader of the 3 defendants in terms of the amount of activity on this case.

But it also does not appear to me that the 3 defendants are collaborating at all in their defense. FWIW.

If the case moves forward to trial with all three as defendants, I think they will collaborate. Right now, they're letting Dina's attorney take the lead. No need to pay three sets of attorneys to work on the same thing. They all now know the questions Mary was asked and refused to answer.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

I think we all have to be very clear about a few things.

*Not every question that is asked at a deposition is a valid, legal, appropriate, question. It's not "free for all".

*The filed documents make it abundantly clear that MZL was advised by her counsel not to answer the 68 questions outlined by attorneys. That does not mean she has something to hide, nor does it mean she "refused" to answer. The contested questions are felt to be legally irrelevant, invalid, or inappropriate by her attorneys, which is their right. The defense contested that, which is their right. The judge will rule on that at some point in the coming months. We will all just have to wait.

*MZL answered questions for 6 hours, according to the documents. The listed areas where she was advised not to answer most likely represent a very small proportion of the total number of questions she DID answer.

*The presence of XZ, a minor, in the home when MS had his tragic accident is irrelevant to the defendant's defense of the allegations of her responsibility for Rebecca's murder. The arrangements for this minor's living situation are irrelevant to the allegations in the Zahau WDS. XZ was not even in California when Rebecca was alleged to be murdered by the defendants. This is not a civil WDS about Max's death; indeed-- DS has already accused JS of responsibility for Max's death in her own WDS filed in AZ. This California case is about Rebecca's death, and only Rebecca's death.

 

[bourne]

I think we all have to be very clear about a few things.

*Not every question that is asked at a deposition is a valid, legal, appropriate, question. It's not "free for all".

*The filed documents make it abundantly clear that MZL was advised by her counsel not to answer the 68 questions outlined by attorneys. That does not mean she has something to hide, nor does it mean she "refused" to answer. The contested questions are felt to be legally irrelevant, invalid, or inappropriate by her attorneys, which is their right. The defense contested that, which is their right. The judge will rule on that at some point in the coming months. We will all just have to wait.

*MZL answered questions for 6 hours, according to the documents. The listed areas where she was advised not to answer most likely represent a very small proportion of the total number of questions she DID answer.

*The presence of XZ, a minor, in the home when MS had his tragic accident is irrelevant to the defendant's defense of the allegations of her responsibility for Rebecca's murder. The arrangements for this minor's living situation are irrelevant to the allegations in the Zahau WDS. XZ was not even in California when Rebecca was alleged to be murdered by the defendants. This is not a civil WDS about Max's death; indeed-- DS has already accused JS of responsibility for Max's death in her own WDS filed in AZ. This California case is about Rebecca's death, and only Rebecca's death.

Agreed. No reason for Rebecca's sister MZL to answer random miscellaneous impertinent questions that are wholly irrelevant to the Zahau's WDS just because Dina wants to vent her perpetual rage. It's ludicrous to say that all questions need to be answered during depos. because that would literally mean an INFINITE number of IRRELEVANT Questions can be asked. That would mean depos could last FOREVER. Simply LUDICROUS from both a legal and practical standpoint.

BBM. WTH did Dina not file a WDS against Rebecca's estate if she felt Rebecca "assaulted" and "caused the homicide" of her child?

 

[bourne]

Post by Carioca from 10/23/2014 - thumbnails are attached in the original post.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...13-2013-in-California&p=11125536#post11125536

For the record, on October 2, attorneys for Rebecca's family filed a Motion for Protective Order. The Motion Hearing date is scheduled for December 5, 2014. IMO the evidence for murder speaks for itself.

A couple of definitions for Protective Order

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
A motion for protective order refers to a party's request that the court protect it from potentially abusive action by the other party. Such a request is often made in relation to discovery, as when one party seeks discovery of the other party's trade secrets.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mot...tective-order/

PROTECTIVE ORDER
In litigation, an order that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain conditions.

Any order issued by a court which is meant to protect a person from harm or harassment.

A protective order is commonly used to protect a party or witness from unreasonable or invasive discovery requests (for example, harassing questions in a deposition).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p103.htm

Lash, it looks like the hearing for Zahau's request for protective order has already passed, per your statement above that it was set for 12/5/2014. I wonder what was the judge's ruling?

 

[bourne]

And I'll also add that filing excessive motions, or making pleas for additional things not granted in the rules of civil procedure, are simple and often-used tactics to delay the progress of a case. Everything filed with a request for something has to be acted on in some way, so it's easy to keep filing "stuff" to be a nuisance, or delay the progress or conclusion of a case. In cases involving substantial amounts of $$, with one side having more than the other, it's a common tactic to run out the money of the other party.

One civil lawsuit (related to fraudulent billing by the defendants) one of my professional organizations was involved in filing went on for 10 years, while the defendant group filed motion after motion after motion. Requests for everything under the sun, and the kitchen sink, too. The case finally concluded with the defendants "settling" one of the 3 suits for more than 11 million dollars.

Agreed. Dina's attempting to STALL the WDS trial as long as possible.

 

[bourne]

In my opinion, one thing has become clear. Dina's attorneys appear to have a pattern of asking excessive, unnecessary questions in depositions. Imo, borderline harassment. Maybe there is a legal strategy behind it, IDK. Two different civil cases, but the Zahau's and Jonah both filed motions for PO's with the judge actually granting Jonah's motion. Speaks volumes! Also, very interesting how quiet Nina and Adam appear to be in their defense strategy compared to Dina's representation.

I think purposefully asking irrelevant, unnecessary, inordinate numbers of questions in a lawsuit IS harassment. I believe that is why Jonah was granted an order of protection against Dina in her WDS suit against him. I am certain that the Judge in the Zahau's order of protection hearing against Dina will also be granted.

Re: speculated Zahau order of protection against Dina for Rebecca's younger teen sister (minor XZ), I believe that has already been granted several years ago since right after Dina went on live tv to publicly accuse minor XZ of "assaulting and causing homicide of Max" we have not heard anything related to this from Dina in the media since. As we all are aware of how vitriolic and vocal Dina is, I believe something LEGAL such as a protective order against Dina must have prevented her from doing so.

 

[kittychi]

Agreed. No reason for Rebecca's sister MZL to answer random miscellaneous impertinent questions that are wholly irrelevant to the Zahau's WDS just because Dina wants to vent her perpetual rage. It's ludicrous to say that all questions need to be answered during depos. because that would literally mean an INFINITE number of IRRELEVANT Questions can be asked. That would mean depos could last FOREVER. Simply LUDICROUS from both a legal and practical standpoint.

BBM. WTH did Dina not file a WDS against Rebecca's estate if she felt Rebecca "assaulted" and "caused the homicide" of her child?

BBM: I venture to say that Dina's WDS was against Jonah because that's where the money is, not RZ's estate.

Gold digging perhaps?

 

[K_Z]

BBM: I venture to say that Dina's WDS was against Jonah because that's where the money is, not RZ's estate.

Gold digging perhaps?

You have to spend someone's money to make money, right? It's a common business model.

Or maybe it's more like biting the hand that feeds. Or the spoils of war. Or something.

 

[Inparadise]

You have to spend someone's money to make money, right? It's a common business model.

Or maybe it's more like biting the hand that feeds. Or the spoils of war. Or something.

Well, Dina was able to "break" her prenup with Jonah (with the help of Gloria Allred), so I would expect that she is looking to repeat the process with her WDS against Jonah. IMO, she knows where the "bodies are buried" when it comes to Jonah's finances and business dealings.............

 

[bourne]

BBM: I venture to say that Dina's WDS was against Jonah because that's where the money is, not RZ's estate.

Gold digging perhaps?

Agreed, particularly given that Dina had PUBLICLY accused Rebecca and her teen sister XZ a minor of "assaulting and causing the homicide of Max", and NEVER publicly accused Jonah, it stands to reason two things: 1) Dina didn't even believe her own "experts" that Rebecca and XZ's actions caused Max's death; and 2) Dina only cares about $$$$$$$$$$$$money and Jonah is where the $moneypot is and that is why she is suing Jonah (and not the direct culprits she falsely charged as having assaulted and caused Max's homicide").

It is blatantly evident that Dina is NOT after the TRUTH or JUSTICE for Max but only to deepen her own financial pocket. It makes me wonder what type of mother cares more about money than seeking the truth????

 

[screecher]

Agreed, particularly given that Dina had PUBLICLY accused Rebecca and her teen sister XZ a minor of "assaulting and causing the homicide of Max", and NEVER publicly accused Jonah, it stands to reason two things: 1) Dina didn't even believe her own "experts" that Rebecca and XZ's actions caused Max's death; and 2) Dina only cares about $$$$$$$$$$$$money and Jonah is where the $moneypot is and that is why she is suing Jonah (and not the direct culprits she falsely charged as having assaulted and caused Max's homicide").

It is blatantly evident that Dina is NOT after the TRUTH or JUSTICE for Max but only to deepen her own financial pocket. It makes me wonder what type of mother cares more about money than seeking the truth????

Just bringing this forward. All truth, imho.

 

[screecher]

Well, Dina was able to "break" her prenup with Jonah (with the help of Gloria Allred), so I would expect that she is looking to repeat the process with her WDS against Jonah. IMO, she knows where the "bodies are buried" when it comes to Jonah's finances and business dealings.............

So in otherwords, Dina is blackmailing JS ?!!!

 

[screecher]

You have to spend someone's money to make money, right? It's a common business model.

Or maybe it's more like biting the hand that feeds. Or the spoils of war. Or something.

BBM

All three and more, imo.

 

[Carioca]

There has been quite a bit of activity recently in the Federal Case (Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS) as per docket entries below. In summary, Dina's attorney Daniel Benchoff has withdrawn as her attorney; Nina has new attorney, Dena M Acosta; Dina, Nina and Adam responded with motions opposing the Plaintiffs' request to Stay Proceedings(document 59 - entered 1/15/2015):

04/06/2015 Document 65
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Daniel Benchoff by Dina Shacknai.

03/27/2015 Document 64
RESPONSE in Support re 59 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Estate of Rebecca Zahau.

03/23/2015 Document 63
RESPONSE to Motion re 59 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Defendant Adam Shacknai's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings filed by Adam Shacknai.

03/23/2015 Document 62
RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Nina Romano.

03/23/2015 Document 61
NOTICE of Appearance by Dena M Acosta on behalf of Nina Romano (Acosta, Dena) Attorney Dena M Acosta added to party Nina Romano

03/23/2015 Document 60
RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Dina Shacknai.

--------

Attached is the Plaintiff's response to the 3 defendants' Opposition to Stay
Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS Document 64-1 Filed 03/27/15
Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS Document 64 Filed 03/27/15

https://pcl.uscourts.gov/search

Am time challenged at moment to comment further, but here is an interesting excerpt:

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.

 

[*Lash*]

It was Detective Keith James from the Coronado Police Dept who requested and served the Rady's search warrant. The list of seized items includes the 27 recorded discs. No mention of the DOJ and the warrant was requested in state court, county of San Diego. From what I can tell the Zahau attorneys have shown these discs are not being held by a federal agency. What makes Dina think the DOJ are holding these videos? Very interesting.

SW - 41432
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmb/misc/warrant_41432.pdf

 

[justice be served]

I know it is quite the leap to look at these pleadings and infer too much, but the chronology ending with the withdrawal of Dina's attorney makes me scratch my head and wonder if the defendant has been leading the charge and her attorney said 'enough I'm outta here'.

It further seems that the "inability" to view the Rady CD's is more than weak. Come on, really? You can't get your hands on them and you state that's your primary defense? Heck, I would remove myself from the defense counsel as well.

Things don't appear very good for the defense at least from these last items.

My question would be "what else you got, Dina?".

 

[*Lash*]

I believe the attorney withdrawing, Daniel Benchoff, is representing Dina in the wrongful death suit against Jonah.

 

[time]

It was Detective Keith James from the Coronado Police Dept who requested and served the Rady's search warrant. The list of seized items includes the 27 recorded discs. No mention of the DOJ and the warrant was requested in state court, county of San Diego. From what I can tell the Zahau attorneys have shown these discs are not being held by a federal agency. What makes Dina think the DOJ are holding these videos? Very interesting.

SW - 41432
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmb/misc/warrant_41432.pdf

This seems like some huge blunder (or whatever it is?) to request "federal subpoena power" to get Raley's tapes from the DOJ when they are with Coronado Police Dept and BBM below....

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.


If Dina's attorneys are claiming 'futility' and they can't provide any supporting documentation of trying to gain access, then what is going on? Are they trying to delay the process? Or what?

 

[K_Z]

Daniel Benchoff is also one of the attorneys Dina added to her team on the CA State case a few weeks ago. His paperwork wasn't in order in December-ish, and he had to apply a couple times before being approved and added.

Agreed-- the snip about Rady surveillance is quite interesting. I'm really surprised, but glad, that the original Rady surveillance has been preserved! With all the fumblings and bumblings with the evidence in this case, I'd suspected it was no longer preserved when RZ's death was classified a suicide. There can't be anything favorable to Dina's claims on those CDs, or it would have been released by now. Heck, the surveillance clips would have been played over and over on the news, if there were that kind of evidence.

And I agree, why in the world would the DOJ be holding onto evidence like that?? Why would the DOJ even have that evidence in the first place?? It makes no sense at all.

 

[K_Z]

One observation I have so far is that the plaintiffs pretty clearly want to have a trial date set, and defendants do not. In fact, from Mr. Greer's comments below, a court date in the September 2015 time frame was possible just recently. Defendants refused to accept a trial date. Defendants either don't know about, or aren't willing, to participate in the new no-cost program that uses retired judges to act on demurrers, etc, to speed up the preliminary trial processes. So, yes, I have to wonder about delay tactics on the part of the defendants-- particularly DS.

As discussed below, the various other arguments presented by the
Defendants are either irrelevant or just plain false. There is no excessive delay
inherent in the Statue Court system, Defendant Dina Shacknai has not established
a need for Federal subpoena power and trying the actions concurrently in two
separate courts simply can not “improve” judicial efficiency.

Any delay in this case going to trial will not have anything to do with the
caseload pending in State Court. As discussed in Plaintiff’s opening brief, at the
last Case Management Conference before Judge Bacal, the court was setting trials
in September 2015. The Defendant’s refusal to accept a trial date had nothing to
do with the State court’s calendar. Moreover, the fact that the State Court’s law
and motion calendar is backed up will not be what causes a delay in the State
Court trial. Although Defendant Dina Shacknai argues the court giving her a
hearing date in November 2015 for her motion to compel is indicia of an over
worked State Court, what she failed to disclose to this Court is that the State Court
has addressed this issue by creating a no-cost Pilot Program using retired judges to
act as facilitators for demurrers and discovery issues. (See Declaration of C. Keith
Greer, (“Greer Decl.&#8221, ¶3, pg. 2). Judge Bacal also advised the parties at the last
Case Management Conference, and posts on the court’s web site, her policy that:
“The court makes itself available to the parties during ex parte hours to discuss
discovery disputes prior to filing of motions to compel. Although not required, the
Court encourages such a discussion.” (Id.)

BBM.