Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #4

[K_Z]

New entry #241 on the San Diego ROA. We now know it's the Zahaus that requested the ex-parte. That is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 0845.

241 11/09/2015 Ex Parte Application - Other and Supporting Documents filed by Estate of Rebecca Zahau; Estate of Robert Zahau; Zahau-Loehner, Mary; Zahau, Pari Z.

11/10/2015 08:45 AM C-69 Ex Parte

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL


I'll check later and see if "other and supporting documents" are posted for public viewing. Maybe not, with an ex-parte meeting.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

It appears the Zahaus are doing everything they can to slink out of answering their deposition questions this Friday, the 13th.

241 11/09/2015 Ex Parte Application - Other and Supporting Documents filed by Estate of Rebecca Zahau; Estate of Robert Zahau; Zahau-Loehner, Mary; Zahau, Pari Z.

I really doubt the Judge is going to be on the Zahaus side in this. In fact, I bet filing this ex parte is just going to work against them. I think the Judge will wonder why they are trying to weasel out of answering over 100 questions pertinent to the case a in a case THEY filed.

Just what are the Zahaus trying to hide? That they have NO evidence? That was already clear in their last attempt at the complaint.

Beware Zahaus - Friday the 13th IS COMING!

 

[K_Z]

There is currently nothing scheduled for Friday, November 13 on the San Diego Register of Actions in the Zahau case.

Here is the complete list of future events:

11/10/2015 08:45 AM C-69 Ex Parte
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Civil Case Management Conference - Complaint
02/26/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
03/11/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike

Oh-- and here is the new 9 page document #241.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Other_and_Supporting_Docume_1447102705745.pdf

 

[LuckyLucy2]

You must have missed Lash's post on the previous page. This information is found in the "Court Rulings" page of the court.

http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/v...CU-PO-CTL&SelDates=11/06/2015&EventId=1505698

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 05, 2015

EVENT DATE: 11/06/2015 EVENT TIME: 01:30:00 PM
DEPT.: C-69 JUDICIAL OFFICER: Katherine Bacal
CASE NO.: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
CASE TITLE: ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI [IMAGED]

CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing
CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other


CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:
Defendant's motions to compel further deposition testimony are continued to November 13 at 1:30 p.m​

See just above? The hearing on the Motion to Compel further testimony by Mary Zahau, Doug Loehner, and XZ's will take place this Friday, the 13th, at 1:30 p.m.

I do not think the Zahaus will be able to evade answering those deposition questions. Even by filing an ex parte. Just WHAT is it that they are trying to hide??????

 

[LuckyLucy2]

The court documents that KZ posted even say a hearing is scheduled for Friday, but looks like Greer is trying to skate out of that:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 10, 2015 at 8:45 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in Department "C-69" of the above-entitled Court, located at 330 W Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101-3827, Plaintiffs, will and hereby, do apply ex parte for an order continuing the hearing on the following motions: 1) Defendant Dina Shacknai's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Mary Zahau-Loehner; 2) Defendant Dina Shacknai's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Doug P. Loehner; and 3) Defendant Dina Shacknai's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Xena Zahau from the currently calendared date of November 13, 2015 at 1 :30 p.m. to such other date as the Court deems appropriate, not earlier than November 20, 2015.

This application is based on the grounds that: 1) California Rules of Court 3.1332(c)(states that a Court may grant a continuance under circumstances that may indicate good cause due to the unavailability of counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; and 2) Plaintiffs' counsel is unavailable on the hearing date set by the Court on November 6, 2015.

Greer is trying to say that he has another hearing on Friday. I hope the Court checks that information to make sure he is telling the truth.

Wow. The Zahaus sure are wasting a lot of the Court's time in this lawsuit. I'm thinking the Judge will fine them harshly come February when the case is dismissed due to fabricated accusations, and not one bit of evidence.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

The document I linked in post 183, which is #241 on the ROA (posted today) describes what the issue is/ was with Friday, November 13.

I'll summarize the 9 pages:

* The hearing scheduled Friday November 6 was "continued sua sponte", and rescheduled to November 13.

* Attorney Greer is unable to make that date, due to being already scheduled to appear in another case in Costa County, California. That appearance had already been re-scheduled several times, and the plane ticket for him to appear has already been purchased.

* Attorney Greer is asking for the hearing that WAS scheduled for Nov 6, and then Nov 13, to be rescheduled not earlier than November 20, due to other cases scheduled on his calendar.

* He is allowed to ask for this continuance, according to the California Rules of Court 3.1332(c)(3), because this situation is an excusable circumstance, and Plaintiff's counsel is unavailable on the hearing date set by the court November 6, 2015.

* The last few pages of the 9 page document are a "proposed order" for Judge Bacal, with the date, time, and Defendant attorneys left as blank spaces to fill in.

So, basically, the court set a continuance date that conflicted with another of Mr. Greer's cases. This is his formal request to have that continued again-- rescheduled. I can't imagine that the court would not agree with this and reschedule the hearing.

Hope that's clear enough! It's just a scheduling conflict. I see nothing nefarious, dramatic, or controversial here, lol! Scheduling conflicts DO occur in the real world!

Neither side moved to continue the hearing on Nov 6-- the Judge made that decision. Maybe she had a conflict? It happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sua_sponte

 

[bourne]

Yes, a dismissal with prejudice is a final determination on the merits. This can happen after the court has actually considered the merits--or when the parties agree to dismiss with prejudice. If the parties agree, there would be no reason for a judge to deny the request. In this case, we happen to know that the parties agreed, because a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice appears on the docket.

Thanks. This, to me, means that either both Dina the plaintiff who brought the WDS case forward against Jonah, and Jonah the defendant, agreed that Dina's WDS has no merits and therefore concede to the WDS being dismissed with prejudice so that Dina could never ever sue Jonah for this WDS again, or that money exchanged hands between Jonah and Dina so that this agreement was "bought" (sort to speak).

Do we have access to the disposition documents or the case files so that we could ascertain what exactly the circumstances were which prompted both parties to agree to "Dismiss with prejudice"?

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I just hope the court checks out Greer's excuse for missing Friday's hearing to make sure it is valid. And it seems someone else in his firm could have dealt with the other case.

But perhaps the Zahaus lawyer has something scheduled in the disgusting $20 million dollar case he has brought against the FBI - for the sister of the man that kidnapped teenager Hannah Anderson and was killed during her rescue. That wouldn't surprise me. After all, $20 million is more than $10 million.

I wonder if Dina has already bought her ticket for Friday's hearing? If so, I hope she can add it to the monetary sanctions she is sure to receive when the hearing is finally held. Unless the Zahaus find another excuse to postpone.

 

[K_Z]

More new entries on the San Diego ROA posted toward the end of the work day. Notice the gap between entry #240 posted earlier today, and now the list skips to #248.

It's now clear that Atty Greer submitted his instant motion (#241 linked up a few posts) and it got posted on the ROA even before the Judge's continuances and the minutes from November 6 were put up on the site. Now the event list is showing the Friday Nov 13 hearing date, which will almost certainly be continued and rescheduled in a day or so, based on Attorney Greer's valid conflict outlined in his instant motion.

We've seen this happen in this case before-- things happen in a hearing on a Friday, and then the results (minutes, orders, etc) and follow up motions, etc show up out of order on the ROA early the next week. It makes it somewhat confusing if one isn't following the case closely.

Perhaps AZlawyer could comment and confirm my interpretation that these items are being posted on the ROA out of order, due to whatever system is in place as to how the entries are submitted and posted. I would guess things trickle into the system electronically, and have to be validated and processed before being added to the ROA for a case. And that leads to things being out of order, when they come from several different sources (judges, attorneys, etc), and a late Friday hearing is going on. Everyone knows that the work week gets increasingly busy as it gets closer to close of business on Friday afternoons-- things finishing up, and not enough time to submit/ record all the events happening late in the day, etc. Stuff rolls over to Monday.

The attorneys and judge clearly knew what happened Friday Nov 6-- there is just a lag in the posting on the electronic system. IMO.

251 11/06/2015 Minutes finalized for Multiple Events heard 11/06/2015 01:30:00 PM.

250 11/06/2015 Discovery Hearing continued pursuant to Court's motion to 11/13/2015 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

249 11/06/2015 Discovery Hearing continued pursuant to Court's motion to 11/13/2015 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

248 11/06/2015 Discovery Hearing continued pursuant to Court's motion to 11/13/2015 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal

.

11/10/2015 08:45 AM C-69 Ex Parte
11/13/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing - Motion to Compel Discovery
11/13/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing - Motion to Compel Discovery
11/13/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing - Motion to Compel Discovery
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Civil Case Management Conference - Complaint
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
02/26/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
03/11/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I love seeing that Summary Judgement / Summary Adjudication and all those Demurrer / Motion to Strikes coming up!

:loveyou:

 

[Morag]

I love seeing that Summary Judgement / Summary Adjudication and all those Demurrer / Motion to Strikes coming up!

:loveyou:

You're easily pleased.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

You're easily pleased.

Not at all.

I think when innocent people are vindicated in a case where false charges were brought, it will be a day to celebrate JUSTICE!

The Shacknais and Nina Romano have had to put up with this crap from the Zahaus for four and a half YEARS.

Was it not enough that Rebecca was negligent in watching Max, and the adorable little boy had a fatal fall under her watch? Was it not enough that she did not stick around to answer Child Protective Services questions, but instead took the cowards way out? And then the Zahaus felt they had to torment these innocent people for so long just to make some money????? Their actions have been disgusting and deplorable. I have never seen another family involved in a tragedy act so unscrupulously and with such gall.

I believed that innocent people should not be maliciously persecuted by accusing them of sadistic crimes. So yes, it will be wonderful day when the Zahaus case is proved to be nothing but lies, they are heavily fined, and the case is thrown out of court.

And that day will be here soon.

 

[kittychi]

I love seeing that Summary Judgement / Summary Adjudication and all those Demurrer / Motion to Strikes coming up!

:loveyou:

Is that when Dina FINALLY plans to submit her alibi TO THE COURT?

 

[*Lash*]

It wasn't difficult for me to verify Zahau attorney Mr. Greer indeed has another court appearance on the 13th. Especially considering in his ex parte document Atty. Greer provided the judge the case number creating the conflict. I'm sure it won't be hard for the judge to verify. Nothing nefarious here. Just a scheduling conflict.

Case MSC13-01151 - Complaints/Parties

11/13/2015 1:30 PM DEPT. 09

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SET BY COURT)

http://icms.cc-courts.org/tellme/te...urtcode=A&casenumber=MSC13-01151&casetype=CIV

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks. This, to me, means that either both Dina the plaintiff who brought the WDS case forward against Jonah, and Jonah the defendant, agreed that Dina's WDS has no merits and therefore concede to the WDS being dismissed with prejudice so that Dina could never ever sue Jonah for this WDS again, or that money exchanged hands between Jonah and Dina so that this agreement was "bought" (sort to speak).

Do we have access to the disposition documents or the case files so that we could ascertain what exactly the circumstances were which prompted both parties to agree to "Dismiss with prejudice"?

Normally, these agreements are made with neither side confessing any merits or lack thereof. Also, the actual settlement agreement would not be filed with the court in any event--just the stipulation to dismiss.

More new entries on the San Diego ROA posted toward the end of the work day. Notice the gap between entry #240 posted earlier today, and now the list skips to #248.

It's now clear that Atty Greer submitted his instant motion (#241 linked up a few posts) and it got posted on the ROA even before the Judge's continuances and the minutes from November 6 were put up on the site. Now the event list is showing the Friday Nov 13 hearing date, which will almost certainly be continued and rescheduled in a day or so, based on Attorney Greer's valid conflict outlined in his instant motion.

We've seen this happen in this case before-- things happen in a hearing on a Friday, and then the results (minutes, orders, etc) and follow up motions, etc show up out of order on the ROA early the next week. It makes it somewhat confusing if one isn't following the case closely.

Perhaps AZlawyer could comment and confirm my interpretation that these items are being posted on the ROA out of order, due to whatever system is in place as to how the entries are submitted and posted. I would guess things trickle into the system electronically, and have to be validated and processed before being added to the ROA for a case. And that leads to things being out of order, when they come from several different sources (judges, attorneys, etc), and a late Friday hearing is going on. Everyone knows that the work week gets increasingly busy as it gets closer to close of business on Friday afternoons-- things finishing up, and not enough time to submit/ record all the events happening late in the day, etc. Stuff rolls over to Monday.

The attorneys and judge clearly knew what happened Friday Nov 6-- there is just a lag in the posting on the electronic system. IMO.

.





Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

Yeah, they seem to have a pretty terrible docketing system. Things are constantly hopping on and off the calendar and appearing in the wrong order.

 

[Betty P]

It wasn't difficult for me to verify Zahau attorney Mr. Greer indeed has another court appearance on the 13th. Especially considering in his ex parte document Atty. Greer provided the judge the case number creating the conflict. I'm sure it won't be hard for the judge to verify. Nothing nefarious here. Just a scheduling conflict.

Case MSC13-01151 - Complaints/Parties

11/13/2015 1:30 PM DEPT. 09

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SET BY COURT)

http://icms.cc-courts.org/tellme/te...urtcode=A&casenumber=MSC13-01151&casetype=CIV

IIRC from the documents that K_Z so generously downloaded, Mr. Greer also provided documentation for his airline reservation to attend the other court hearing for another client. Pretty standard stuff.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Is that when Dina FINALLY plans to submit her alibi TO THE COURT?

Depositions are not published, and the only way we find out about them is if the information is included in a Motion to the Court, how do you KNOW Dina has not been deposed?

Do you have a link to show who has been deposed since last January?

 

[*Lash*]

DATE: 11/06/2015

CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER
TIME: 01:30:00 PM

DEPT: C-69
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Katherine Bacal
CLERK: Jay Browder
REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: M. Addenbrooke

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CASE NO: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
CASE INIT.DATE: 11/13/2013
CASE TITLE: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IMAGED]
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other

EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing
MOVING PARTY: Dina Shacknai
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of X*** Zahau, 10/13/2015

EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing
MOVING PARTY: Dina Shacknai
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of X*** Zahau, 10/13/2015

EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing
MOVING PARTY: Dina Shacknai
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Doug P Loehner, 10/13/2015

APPEARANCES
No Appearance by all parties

Now being the time previously set for hearing (1) Defendant's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Zena Zhau; (2) Defendant's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Witness Mary Vahau; and (3) Defendant's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Witness Doug Leohner, there are no appearances and the hearing commences.

The Court confirms the tentative ruling as follows:
Defendant's motions to compel further deposition testimony are continued to November 13 at 1:30 p.m..

Judge Katherine Bacal


https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...A-251_11-06-15_Minute_Order_1447163637703.pdf

---I am pretty sure one of the discovery hearings should read Mary instead of listing XZ twice.---

ETA - Just to clarify this minute order was finalized before the ex parte application filed by Atty. Greer. The hearing has since been changed to 11/20/15. The Honorable Judge Bacal granted Atty. Greer's request.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

The Motion to Compel Discovery hearing is now scheduled for next Friday. Good to see the Judge wanted them to hold the hearing as soon as Greer could be available.


260 11/10/2015 Discovery Hearing continued pursuant to party's motion to 11/20/2015 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

259 11/10/2015 Discovery Hearing continued pursuant to party's motion to 11/20/2015 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

258 11/10/2015 Discovery Hearing continued pursuant to party's motion to 11/20/2015 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.


Upcoming events:

11/20/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing - Motion to Compel Discovery
11/20/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing - Motion to Compel Discovery
11/20/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing - Motion to Compel Discovery
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Discovery Hearing
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike
02/19/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Civil Case Management Conference - Complaint
02/26/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
03/11/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Just two hours until the Judge makes her decision!

Sure do hope she compels the Zahaus to answer the almost 100 questions they refused to answer, and fines them for their outright refusal to answer deposition questions in a case THEY initiated.

:scale: Justice for the Innocent!