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

[time]

Originally Posted by LuckyLucy2
More speculation and a such vivid imagination!

Rebecca and Jonah were not "planning on getting married." Jonah never proposed to Rebecca. That was one of the things she was so upset about in her diary. The one that, along with DNA and fingerprints, helped to prove she killed herself.

And after Max's "accident", not only would they not be married, they would no longer be together at all, IMO.

PURPLE: Can I ask where you are getting this from?

Lucy... I don't think you ever answered my question. You claim others are speculating, then you claim something as fact. What are you backing it up with?

 

[*Lash*]

There are only two verified insiders in this case:

Nalepa, Rebecca
Chasing.halos - verified local/insider
Inparadise - verified

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...essional-Posters-amp-Verified-Locals-Insiders

 

[bourne]

First we have to put this Judge in context. According to http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=15298 which is a valid source of reviews about judges, the judge has a prejudicial favorable bent towards defendants, apparently because she worked as a defense lawyer for a very long long time...It's likely impossible for her to get out of that mindset wherein defendants are favored, and she'd be meticulously picking apart plaintiff's arguments, likely arguing in favor of the defendants in her own head as a residual intellectual exercise. Is it possible to get the state judge recused because of her prejudices? Also if the state case is dismissed, can the Federal case with the fair and honorable Judge Wheeler go forward? <I'll ask AZlawyer in other thread>

Having said that, here's my take on the Judge's recent ruling:

Judge Katherine Bacal has allowed the Zahaus WDS to proceed and marked the tolling issue moot. She stated "As the wrongful death, assault & battery and negligence claims were equitably tolled they are not barred. "

Re: "Sufficiency of allegations" - I believe the Zahaus/Greer can make the requisite amendments to the complaint as the judge seems to be seeking specific details of "proximate causes" of events.

Greer needs to do is FOCUS in on the 3 components for assault/murder: a) MOTIVE; b) OPPORTUNITY; c) MEANS, but he needs to put in these items as close in time to the actual events of assault, battery, negligence and murder.

E.g., why did Dina strike Rebecca on the head?

Well, Dina was ENRAGED and struck Rebecca out of instinctual fit of rage and aggression because:
a) of "Mother Rage" -- her one and only biological son whom she conceived with a wealthy multibillionaire father Jonah is now braindead and fatally injured <motive>;
b) she felt Rebecca stole Jonah her ex-husband from her <motive>;
c) she was angry about Jonah's betrayal and how he chose Rebecca over her because Jonah appeared to side with Rebecca. Jonah told Dina "Rebecca tried to save Max by giving him CPR" which Dina and Nina vehemently refute to this day...
d) When interrogated aggressively by Dina, Rebecca likely repeated that she felt she did all she could by giving Max CPR...and Dina's already present jealousy and rage towards Rebecca intensified<motive>
e) Dina has a history of violent physical tendencies (Greer needs to show the established police reports of domestic violence between Dina and Jonah);
f) Dina was likely intoxicated and she's known for being a violent drunk;
g) Dina just wanted to show her power and dominance over Rebecca so she decided to slap her while having Rebecca tied to a chair...Perhaps Rebecca pushed Dina and tried to get away from insane, angry, raging, drunk, confrontational Dina so Dina then struck Rebecca in order to restrain Rebecca from running.

Greer also needs to inform Judge about the extenuating, exigent circumstances such as sloppy, biased investigation, and provide evidence that: i) Pfingst (chums with Jonah and POI Adam's brother and the police) was brought in early in the investigation, ii) Dina the primary POI was allowed to penetrate the crime scene tape and contaminate the crime scene the morning Rebecca's body was found and that iii) Dina told the police that it was HER son who was made braindead by Rebecca so Dina, along with Adam, cascaded and transfixed the "suicide" notion onto the cops early in investigation.

E.g., tort of Adam?? This was an unnecessary sticking point made by Judge, from my view. What in the world does someone ariving at a scene after Rebecca was knocked unconscious have to do with a fearful Rebecca? Perhaps Rebecca was going in and out of consciousness? and saw the three POIS' evil eyes and Adam's lascivious looks at her nude body? There could be innumerable reasons why Rebecca was in fear. Perhaps Dina took out the rope and bounded rebecca's arms and feet and made a noose to scare Rebecca???

This judge is being extremely unreasonable...because hey, none of us were there, and there were no videocameras, so we can only surmise and deduce from the available evidence, which was not thoroughly collected or analyzed by the police due to sloppy investigation and biased police work with foregone conclusions due to Gore already ruling it a suicide before investigation even began...

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Lucy... I don't think you ever answered my question. You claim others are speculating, then you claim something as fact. What are you backing it up with?

I would bet by now that EVERYONE HERE knows that exerpts from Rebecca's diary are in Ann Rules book. They are very dramatic, and talks about how Jonah won't hold her face "like a precious egg", amoung other such things, like how she wants to be married to Jonah.

 

[AZlawyer]

First we have to put this Judge in context. According to http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=15298 which is a valid source of reviews about judges, the judge has a prejudicial favorable bent towards defendants, apparently because she worked as a defense lawyer for a very long long time...It's likely impossible for her to get out of that mindset wherein defendants are favored, and she'd be meticulously picking apart plaintiff's arguments, likely arguing in favor of the defendants in her own head as a residual intellectual exercise. Is it possible to get the state judge recused because of her prejudices? Also if the state case is dismissed, can the Federal case with the fair and honorable Judge Wheeler go forward? <I'll ask AZlawyer in other thread>

Having said that, here's my take on the Judge's recent ruling:

Judge Katherine Bacal has allowed the Zahaus WDS to proceed and marked the tolling issue moot. She stated "As the wrongful death, assault & battery and negligence claims were equitably tolled they are not barred. "

Re: "Sufficiency of allegations" - I believe the Zahaus/Greer can make the requisite amendments to the complaint as the judge seems to be seeking specific details of "proximate causes" of events.

Greer needs to do is FOCUS in on the 3 components for assault/murder: a) MOTIVE; b) OPPORTUNITY; c) MEANS, but he needs to put in these items as close in time to the actual events of assault, battery, negligence and murder.

E.g., why did Dina strike Rebecca on the head?

Well, Dina was ENRAGED and struck Rebecca out of instinctual fit of rage and aggression because:
a) of "Mother Rage" -- her one and only biological son whom she conceived with a wealthy multibillionaire father Jonah is now braindead and fatally injured <motive>;
b) she felt Rebecca stole Jonah her ex-husband from her <motive>;
c) she was angry about Jonah's betrayal and how he chose Rebecca over her because Jonah appeared to side with Rebecca. Jonah told Dina "Rebecca tried to save Max by giving him CPR" which Dina and Nina vehemently refute to this day...
d) When interrogated aggressively by Dina, Rebecca likely repeated that she felt she did all she could by giving Max CPR...and Dina's already present jealousy and rage towards Rebecca intensified<motive>
e) Dina has a history of violent physical tendencies (Greer needs to show the established police reports of domestic violence between Dina and Jonah);
f) Dina was likely intoxicated and she's known for being a violent drunk;
g) Dina just wanted to show her power and dominance over Rebecca so she decided to slap her while having Rebecca tied to a chair...Perhaps Rebecca pushed Dina and tried to get away from insane, angry, raging, drunk, confrontational Dina so Dina then struck Rebecca in order to restrain Rebecca from running.

Greer also needs to inform Judge about the extenuating, exigent circumstances such as sloppy, biased investigation, and provide evidence that: i) Pfingst (chums with Jonah and POI Adam's brother and the police) was brought in early in the investigation, ii) Dina the primary POI was allowed to penetrate the crime scene tape and contaminate the crime scene the morning Rebecca's body was found and that iii) Dina told the police that it was HER son who was made braindead by Rebecca so Dina, along with Adam, cascaded and transfixed the "suicide" notion onto the cops early in investigation.

E.g., tort of Adam?? This was an unnecessary sticking point made by Judge, from my view. What in the world does someone ariving at a scene after Rebecca was knocked unconscious have to do with a fearful Rebecca? Perhaps Rebecca was going in and out of consciousness? and saw the three POIS' evil eyes and Adam's lascivious looks at her nude body? There could be innumerable reasons why Rebecca was in fear. Perhaps Dina took out the rope and bounded rebecca's arms and feet and made a noose to scare Rebecca???

This judge is being extremely unreasonable...because hey, none of us were there, and there were no videocameras, so we can only surmise and deduce from the available evidence, which was not thoroughly collected or analyzed by the police due to sloppy investigation and biased police work with foregone conclusions due to Gore already ruling it a suicide before investigation even began...

I think the judge is being very fair to the Zahaus. First, she saved their claims with equitable tolling, which was quite a gift to them and will make the Z's lawyers breathe a sigh of relief that they are no longer on the hook for a malpractice claim.

Second, the judge is not necessarily asking for information about motive, etc., in the amended complaint. She is asking (properly) for the Z's to say WHY they believe each fact that they alleged "on information and belief." For example, if the Z's say "On information and belief, Dina hit Rebecca on the back of the head," they need to say WHAT information led them to that belief. So the amended complaint needs to say (1) Rebecca had head wounds consistent with being hit on the back of the head, (2) Dina was seen at the house, (3) whatever else explains why they think those wounds were caused by Dina. This is correct legal procedure, although the federal judge eventually let the Z's slide a bit on those details.

The judge's ruling on assault was correct. You can't commit an assault on an unconscious person, and the Z's said Rebecca was unconscious at the time of Adam's assault upon her. You can commit battery on an unconscious person, but not assault. The judge says the Z's can amend their complaint to address this issue.

ETA: Just to be clear, this is a ruling on motions to dismiss/demurrers. That means the judge does not consider any evidence at all. This ruling has nothing to do with whether the judge thinks the claims can be proved, and in fact she has seen no evidence at this point. This ruling is only about whether the claims are properly alleged in the complaint. The judge is required to assume at this stage that the Z's can prove everything they allege.

 

[kittychi]

Thank you so very much for your time and expertise, AZLawyer. It is really appreciated.

:tyou:

 

[kimi_SFC]

I think the judge is being very fair to the Zahaus. First, she saved their claims with equitable tolling, which was quite a gift to them and will make the Z's lawyers breathe a sigh of relief that they are no longer on the hook for a malpractice claim.

Second, the judge is not necessarily asking for information about motive, etc., in the amended complaint. She is asking (properly) for the Z's to say WHY they believe each fact that they alleged "on information and belief." For example, if the Z's say "On information and belief, Dina hit Rebecca on the back of the head," they need to say WHAT information led them to that belief. So the amended complaint needs to say (1) Rebecca had head wounds consistent with being hit on the back of the head, (2) Dina was seen at the house, (3) whatever else explains why they think those wounds were caused by Dina. This is correct legal procedure, although the federal judge eventually let the Z's slide a bit on those details.

The judge's ruling on assault was correct. You can't commit an assault on an unconscious person, and the Z's said Rebecca was unconscious at the time of Adam's assault upon her. You can commit battery on an unconscious person, but not assault. The judge says the Z's can amend their complaint to address this issue.

ETA: Just to be clear, this is a ruling on motions to dismiss/demurrers. That means the judge does not consider any evidence at all. This ruling has nothing to do with whether the judge thinks the claims can be proved, and in fact she has seen no evidence at this point. This ruling is only about whether the claims are properly alleged in the complaint. The judge is required to assume at this stage that the Z's can prove everything they allege.

RBBM
WOW, AZLawyer, I always learn so much whenever you post, especially on RZ's threads. However, I really didn't know about this one (Assault v. Battery on an unconscious person)

This completely illuminates the fairness of the Judge, as you so eloquently stated!

:yourock:
:gthanks:
:bow:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bourne]

I think the judge is being very fair to the Zahaus. First, she saved their claims with equitable tolling, which was quite a gift to them and will make the Z's lawyers breathe a sigh of relief that they are no longer on the hook for a malpractice claim.

Second, the judge is not necessarily asking for information about motive, etc., in the amended complaint. She is asking (properly) for the Z's to say WHY they believe each fact that they alleged "on information and belief." For example, if the Z's say "On information and belief, Dina hit Rebecca on the back of the head," they need to say WHAT information led them to that belief. So the amended complaint needs to say (1) Rebecca had head wounds consistent with being hit on the back of the head, (2) Dina was seen at the house, (3) whatever else explains why they think those wounds were caused by Dina. This is correct legal procedure, although the federal judge eventually let the Z's slide a bit on those details.

The judge's ruling on assault was correct. You can't commit an assault on an unconscious person, and the Z's said Rebecca was unconscious at the time of Adam's assault upon her. You can commit battery on an unconscious person, but not assault. The judge says the Z's can amend their complaint to address this issue.

ETA: Just to be clear, this is a ruling on motions to dismiss/demurrers. That means the judge does not consider any evidence at all. This ruling has nothing to do with whether the judge thinks the claims can be proved, and in fact she has seen no evidence at this point. This ruling is only about whether the claims are properly alleged in the complaint. The judge is required to assume at this stage that the Z's can prove everything they allege.

So glad we have you, AZlawyer for your legal expertise! WOOHOO! I agree with Kimi_SFC, I learn ever so much from you...bless you and much gratitude always.

Since IANAL, re: motions to dismiss/demurrers. Does this mean the Judge is only ruling on the legal (actionable, and whether the conclusions/claims made by plaintiffs are explainable?) basis for the complaint vs. merits (factual persuasive evidence) of complaint?

I find it hard to distinguish the two...because didn't you once say that any case can be considered actionable as long as there's some logic to it? E.g., A + B --> C. A happened; B happened; therefore, C???

When the Judge asks for facts that led the plaintiffs to believe that Dina struck Rebecca on the head, and you gave examples, "(1) Rebecca had head wounds consistent with being hit on the back of the head <I think the WDS complaint explicitly stated that Dr. Wecht mentioned the 4 concussions on Rebecca's head already so that is a fact in evidence>, (2) Dina was seen at the house <"opportunity">, (3) whatever else explains why they think those wounds were caused by Dina." Doesn't (3) by necessity have to include some type of precipitating cause aka "motive"/reason why Dina did what she did to (struck head of) Rebecca?

Do the Zahaus have to include the "means" by which they speculate Dina had struck Rebecca on the head? E.g., with the big red heavy dog bone? From my skimming of the WDS, I recall reading that the angle of wounds/lacerations on Rebecca's head indicate that something consistent with the 5 pound dog bone had been used to strike Rebecca's head...So that part seems to already be covered by WDS complaint.

What other facts are needed? I suppose from my non-lawyer eyes, what I see is that, anything could have led Dina to strike Rebecca on the head. When someone is in an angry, rage-a-holic state, anything can set them off. As long as you are physically present in the same room (or within the same proximity, even in another part of the house/complex, the courtyard, etc.), the enraged nut would seek you out to physically attack you, particularly if in the past they evinced a pattern of physical violence. It's almost a natural instinct for them to sooner or later blow up on you should you be so unfortunate as to be near them...
So to me, the Judge seems to seeking for specific details which nobody not even the police would have in most murders...unless they have videotapes of the murders.

However, from what you say, it seems Greer/Zahaus need only put together facts in logical order and they should be golden in having the case go forward to trial.

Thanks again for your legal expounders.

 

[*Lash*]

According to Rule's book, Rebecca also wrote....&#8220;Am I pretending that I will be content without ever having a child????&#8221;.

<modsnip>

Excerpt From: Rule, Ann. &#8220;Fatal Friends, Deadly Neighbors.&#8221;
This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[bourne]

According to Rule's book, Rebecca also wrote....&#8220;Am I pretending that I will be content without ever having a child????&#8221;.

<modsnip>

Excerpt From: Rule, Ann. &#8220;Fatal Friends, Deadly Neighbors.&#8221;
This material may be protected by copyright.

Although I respect Ann Rule greatly and I love her prose, I do not take the contents written by a writer who profits from sales of their books to be *primary sources* or factual evidence. We are all aware that writers are sentient human beings, and as such are subject to personal interpretations of perceived evidence. I would take what is written in a book to be secondary if not tertiary sources of info and more hearsay than the gospel truth.

 

[K_Z]

ROA Doc #163 (BBM)
2013-00075418

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





In their amendment the attorneys for the Zahau's will need to add Nina Romano's interview to show she admitted to being on the property that night. Although...it is now evident ALL parties have Rebecca's investigative file per Dina's special interrogatories. Shouldn't Nina's interview with the DOJ agents be suffice? Nina did tell the agents she walked to the mansion in her new yoga pants, right?

BBM.

Nina was definitely interviewed by investigators-- probably more than once, according to interviews she gave. She complained publicly about her *new* yoga pants being confiscated, and also complained that her hair samples were taken ("yanked out of my head"). She was directed to make an appointment for a polygraph, but gave the excuse that she couldn't be "away" from her adult son, or he couldn't be alone, or some variation of that. (Implying that her adult son was too disabled to be by himself, and for whatever reason, she couldn't bring him along to the polygraph appointment. Others have disputed that the adult son is not disabled at that level, and has a driver's license, and attends college.)

There should also be the text messages as evidence from Nina to Rebecca-- the ones with the time stamp that was inexplicably "off" by an hour.

It shouldn't be difficult for Attorney Greer to establish that Nina was at the mansion late that night-- particularly since she has admitted it.

It may just be a procedural oversight-- the argument supporting her presence may just not be documented clearly enough, so the judge wants it cleared up.

 

[bourne]

I also want to add that Judges are also sentient human beings with their own biases and colored lenses for how they perceive the world/people, and their interpretations of "facts" and even the law are also subject to their colored lenses. That is why there is rarely (if ever) any consensus amongst the 9 Supreme Court Justices when cases are brought before them. There are always dissenting and varied opinions, AND their rulings/decisions also often evolve with time. E.g., same-sex marriage (in which some justices ask to see "legal precedents" and others wanted to know the "contexts" and "definitions" of what "marriage" even means, e.g., whether marriages are ONLY between man and woman, etc.) and even Roe vs. Wade keeps cropping up for possible overturning.

In other words, judges' rulings on what the "facts" are in a case are also subject to differential interpretations. Who the heck knows whether a judge would find the facts/evidence "sufficient" and/or "necessary" in a case??? Some say yes; others say no. Clearly even something such as facts which should not be "relative" are, and it depends on who's judging and/or assessing the facts. Recall Prez Clinton even stated, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."

 

[bourne]

BBM.

Nina was definitely interviewed by investigators-- probably more than once, according to interviews she gave. She complained publicly about her *new* yoga pants being confiscated, and also complained that her hair samples were taken ("yanked out of my head"). She was directed to make an appointment for a polygraph, but gave the excuse that she couldn't be "away" from her adult son, or he couldn't be alone, or some variation of that. (Implying that her adult son was too disabled to be by himself, and for whatever reason, she couldn't bring him along to the polygraph appointment. Others have disputed that the adult son is not disabled at that level, and has a driver's license, and attends college.)

There should also be the text messages as evidence from Nina to Rebecca-- the ones with the time stamp that was inexplicably "off" by an hour.

It shouldn't be difficult for Attorney Greer to establish that Nina was at the mansion late that night-- particularly since she has admitted it.

It may just be a procedural oversight-- the argument supporting her presence may just not be documented clearly enough, so the judge wants it cleared up.

Lash & KZ, this piece of the puzzle is easily cleared up as you both say by Nina's own admissions to investigators and even her CBS8 audiotaped interview and the CBS8 news report.

I still find the concept of "tort" and how Rebecca needed to be "conscious" in order for "battery" to occur a fudge point. As I stated above, it could be Rebecca was knocked unconscious for some time prior to Adam coming into the scene, but that she was partially or semi-conscious when he arrived, correct?

Again, who the heck knows. None of us nor the Judge or lawyers were there. Only the POIs and Rebecca know what happened, and Rebecca's dead...It's a shame Jonah didn't install videocameras in his Spreckels mansion. That would have cleared up the murder in a second...although judging from the way Gore mishandled the hospital surveillance videos (i.e., claiming that Dina was sitting vigil by her braindead son's bedside holding his hands when clearly Dina was NOWHERE near the hospital as she wasn't even captured in ANY hospital surveillance videos during the critical time period wherein Rebecca was heinously murdered...), somehow I think even if there were videos of Rebecca being murdered by the POIS, Gore would twist the videos to mean something totally different.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

BBM.

Nina was definitely interviewed by investigators-- probably more than once, according to interviews she gave. She complained publicly about her *new* yoga pants being confiscated, and also complained that her hair samples were taken ("yanked out of my head"). She was directed to make an appointment for a polygraph, but gave the excuse that she couldn't be "away" from her adult son, or he couldn't be alone, or some variation of that. (Implying that her adult son was too disabled to be by himself, and for whatever reason, she couldn't bring him along to the polygraph appointment. Others have disputed that the adult son is not disabled at that level, and has a driver's license, and attends college.)

There should also be the text messages as evidence from Nina to Rebecca-- the ones with the time stamp that was inexplicably "off" by an hour.

It shouldn't be difficult for Attorney Greer to establish that Nina was at the mansion late that night-- particularly since she has admitted it.

It may just be a procedural oversight-- the argument supporting her presence may just not be documented clearly enough, so the judge wants it cleared up.

Nina did not give a polygraph because her nephew was in the process of having his organs harvested to save three other children and then he was being taken off life support. Hardly the time to have someone take a polygraph - especially when they are not considered a suspect.

 

[bourne]

Ok, looks like something positive happening for Zahaus soon. Just got word from insider said we will know soon enough Re: good news for Zahaus/bad for POIs. WOOHOO! :jail: Dina, Nina.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Funny, I just got the opposite news from insider that the case will soon be thrown out because the Zahau's have no evidence to back up their false claims.

Bye-bye coniving, lying, money-hungry Zahaus!

:loveyou:

 

[Harmony 2]

mod note: Passions and emotions are running high in this case and tensions build with differing opinions. We are all entitled to our thoughts and opinions. Please keep this discussion civil, respectful and courteous. If you feel you are getting aggravated with a poster’s opinion then scroll and roll, use the ignore feature or take a little break. If you see a post that violates TOS, please do not quote it. Alert the post ASAP so a mod can handle the problem.

Opinions and theories are welcome as long as they are based in FACT, i.e., LE statements and MSM. Linking to facts, documents, etc. will further back up your posts. Please keep accusations, sleuthing or derogatory comments about minors out of the discussion.

Failure to comply with these guidelines may result in temporary loss of posting privileges.

 

[*Lash*]

Lash & KZ, this piece of the puzzle is easily cleared up as you both say by Nina's own admissions to investigators and even her CBS8 audiotaped interview and the CBS8 news report.

I still find the concept of "tort" and how Rebecca needed to be "conscious" in order for "battery" to occur a fudge point. As I stated above, it could be Rebecca was knocked unconscious for some time prior to Adam coming into the scene, but that she was partially or semi-conscious when he arrived, correct?

Again, who the heck knows. None of us nor the Judge or lawyers were there. Only the POIs and Rebecca know what happened, and Rebecca's dead...It's a shame Jonah didn't install videocameras in his Spreckels mansion. That would have cleared up the murder in a second...although judging from the way Gore mishandled the hospital surveillance videos (i.e., claiming that Dina was sitting vigil by her braindead son's bedside holding his hands when clearly Dina was NOWHERE near the hospital as she wasn't even captured in ANY hospital surveillance videos during the critical time period wherein Rebecca was heinously murdered...), somehow I think even if there were videos of Rebecca being murdered by the POIS, Gore would twist the videos to mean something totally different.

BBM- I am trying to understand if the assault by Adam can be alleged differently (as you mentioned) in the amended complaint? Will the Zahau's be able to amend this section to leave open the room for the possibility Rebecca regained consciousness?

ETA - Never mind, I reread AZlawyers post. The Zahau's can amend the assault allegation.

 

[*Lash*]

FYI - Yesterday AZlawyer answered a couple of questions in the lawyer thread

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-for-VERIFIED-LAWYERS&p=11750698#post11750698

 

[K_Z]

Two new entries on the State Register of Actions today-- both just scheduling entries (no documents).

166 05/06/2015 Discovery Hearing date was restored to 07/17/2015 at 01:30:00 PM in C-69 before Katherine Bacal at Central.

165 05/06/2015 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 02/19/2016 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml Case # 2013-75418

[KZ note-- I gotta love that hearings are scheduled out into 2016! I love a tidy, well organized calendar!]

Updated list of future events:

06/26/2015 09:30 AM C-69 Civil Case Management Conference - Complaint
07/17/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
09/04/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil)
10/09/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
11/06/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing