Curiosity Never Kills the Cat: Legal Questions for VERIFIED LAWYERS- ~No Discussion~

New Posts

MaybeNotToday said:
It is REALLY hard for me to believe these attorneys didn't know the difference- but what other reason could it be?
That's why I wondered if this was just a tactic. Last ditch effort to file something before SOL runs out. As if they knew it would get hung up in procedural. But Why? Bluffing? Publicity? Scare tactic? (kind of reminds me of their request to get into JS mansion thinking he would decline )

Either they are masterminding or incompetent.
Click to expand...

MaybeNotToday, I think you forgot that JS had conditions that required LE to accompany them and LE refused.

If you know of a way they could have gotten in otherwise, I would really like to know as it is my understanding that they couldn't get in. Not "wouldn't."

Not sure which thread that info would go on, obviously not this one. But thanks in advance for the info.
 
AZlawyer said:
The "Constitutional standing" argument is kind of silly--they are complaining, as far as I can tell, that the plaintiff was listed as "Estate of Rebecca Zahau," represented by her personal representative, instead of "Mrs. X, in her capacity as Personal Representative of Rebecca Zahau." This is totally correctable and not a big deal.

The "statutory standing" argument has to do with a requirement of California law that a certain affidavit must be filed by the personal representative. I don't know whether this would really be required in federal court, but in any event the deficiency can probably be corrected.

As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, there must be COMPLETE diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction in this case--SOME diversity is no good. In other words, no one on the plaintiff side can have the same state citizenship of anyone on the defendant side.

It is possible that the Zahaus could drop the "survival action" part of the case (brought by the personal representative of Rebecca's estate) and just leave the action brought by her heirs. They would only do this IMO if the judge indicates that he/she plans to dismiss the entire case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

BBM Thanks so much, AZlawyer! :)

It looks like all the motions to dismiss brought forth by the defendants could be easily corrected. And that the lack of diversity for federal jurisdiction could be remedied by dropping the "Estate of Rebecca" (aka personal representative of Rebecca's estate) as plaintiff.
 
AZlawyer said:
They were not saying anything at all about the financial worth of Rebecca's estate. They were just saying (in a not-very-clear way IMO) that the plaintiff should have been "Mrs. X, in her capacity as personal representative of Rebecca Zahau" instead of "the Estate of Rebecca Zahau, represented by its personal representative Mrs. X." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So glad we have a bona fide lawyer in this thread! THANK YOU AZlawyer a million bunch for explaining the legalese. :loveyou:

Wow, so all that mumble-jumble about was word-play. SMH The defendants must be getting desperate if they're using syntactical ploys to get an entire case dismissed.
 
AZlawyer said:
The lawyers didn't leave out Rebecca's state of citizenship. They said it was AZ--which would destroy federal jurisdiction. The only explanation I can think of is that they thought that the important issue was the citizenship of the personal representative rather than the citizenship of the decedent.
Click to expand...

Considering the last text received from Rebecca's phone that evening was from NR who admits to visiting the mansion that evening, and considering AS claims to have been on the property at the time of RZ's death, was the person who allegedly discovered her body, and had an inconclusive lie detector test, could it make sense to drop DS from the WDS, rather than have it thrown out completely? Would that be allowed? And if discovery uncovered involvement by DS, could she be added as one of the 50 Does? Or would any Does in AZ kill the case? Sorry, I don't know how it all works.

All of the above is just my opinion.
 
Zinn said:
Considering the last text received from Rebecca's phone that evening was from NR who admits to visiting the mansion that evening, and considering AS claims to have been on the property at the time of RZ's death, was the person who allegedly discovered her body, and had an inconclusive lie detector test, could it make sense to drop DS from the WDS, rather than have it thrown out completely? Would that be allowed? And if discovery uncovered involvement by DS, could she be added as one of the 50 Does? Or would any Does in AZ kill the case? Sorry, I don't know how it all works.

All of the above is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

AZlawyer already said that if the diversity issue becomes a problem, the Zahau lawyers can drop the "Estate of Rebecca" as a plaintiff and KEEP Dina as a defendant.

No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
 
AZlawyer said:
The "Constitutional standing" argument is kind of silly--they are complaining, as far as I can tell, that the plaintiff was listed as "Estate of Rebecca Zahau," represented by her personal representative, instead of "Mrs. X, in her capacity as Personal Representative of Rebecca Zahau." This is totally correctable and not a big deal.

The "statutory standing" argument has to do with a requirement of California law that a certain affidavit must be filed by the personal representative. I don't know whether this would really be required in federal court, but in any event the deficiency can probably be corrected.

As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, there must be COMPLETE diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction in this case--SOME diversity is no good. In other words, no one on the plaintiff side can have the same state citizenship of anyone on the defendant side.

It is possible that the Zahaus could drop the "survival action" part of the case (brought by the personal representative of Rebecca's estate) and just leave the action brought by her heirs. They would only do this IMO if the judge indicates that he/she plans to dismiss the entire case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

BBM for focus.

I'm curious how this would impact the WDS if the Estate of RZ was dropped and just advanced with the heirs? Could you comment on how that might change the progression of the civil suit?

As always, thank you AZlawyer for your insightful answers, and your time and patience with our questions.
 
K_Z said:
BBM for focus.

I'm curious how this would impact the WDS if the Estate of RZ was dropped and just advanced with the heirs? Could you comment on how that might change the progression of the civil suit?

As always, thank you AZlawyer for your insightful answers, and your time and patience with our questions.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they also have to drop the Does?
 
Zinn said:
Considering the last text received from Rebecca's phone that evening was from NR who admits to visiting the mansion that evening, and considering AS claims to have been on the property at the time of RZ's death, was the person who allegedly discovered her body, and had an inconclusive lie detector test, could it make sense to drop DS from the WDS, rather than have it thrown out completely? Would that be allowed? And if discovery uncovered involvement by DS, could she be added as one of the 50 Does? Or would any Does in AZ kill the case? Sorry, I don't know how it all works.

All of the above is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

They could drop DS, yes, but I think maybe they blame DS more than anyone, so I don't think they want to do that.

Yes, if any of the "Does" were identified as an AZ resident, that would destroy diversity jurisdiction.

bourne said:
AZlawyer already said that if the diversity issue becomes a problem, the Zahau lawyers can drop the "Estate of Rebecca" as a plaintiff and KEEP Dina as a defendant.

No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Click to expand...

K_Z said:
BBM for focus.

I'm curious how this would impact the WDS if the Estate of RZ was dropped and just advanced with the heirs? Could you comment on how that might change the progression of the civil suit?

As always, thank you AZlawyer for your insightful answers, and your time and patience with our questions.
Click to expand...

If they drop the Estate of RZ as a plaintiff, some of the damages would not be recoverable. Some types of wrongful death damages "belong" to the deceased person (the estate) and others "belong" to the heirs.

MaybeNotToday said:
Wouldn't they also have to drop the Does?
Click to expand...

No, the Does are no big deal. They don't reside anywhere unless and until identified. :)
 
AZ... could you comment on what is going on with the other case, asking for evidence.

Carioca said:
Finally some action here: Why Case Should Not be Dismissed hearing schedule for December 6, 2013

Case Number: 37-2013-00047752-CU-MC-CTL
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

15 11/01/2013
Notice of Hearing SD generated. (document) Notice of Hearing SD

14 11/01/2013
Minutes finalized for Civil Case Management Conference heard 11/01/2013 10:00:00 AM.

13 11/01/2013
OSC - Why Case Should Not be Dismissed scheduled for 12/06/2013 at 01:00AM before Judge Randa Trapp.

Keep the faith my friends.
Click to expand...

Carioca said:
OSC (Order to Show Cause) deadline is December 6, 2013 at 01:00AM.

From what I understand, the court scheduled an Order to Show Cause because the court thought the case wasn't being pursued and they want either the plaintiffs (Zahaus) or the defendants (County of San Diego, Gore, Dr Wagner) to advise them why the case shouldn't be dismissed.

Does anyone understand the implications here? IANAL but my guess is Marty Rudoy, attorney for the plaintiffs, is the one with the deadline to prove why it shouldn't be dismissed. That being the case, I shall reserve comment.
:tantrum:
Click to expand...

time said:
Is it possible that the plaintiffs claimed in the hearing that it should be dismissed and that it is fairly normal that a judge would then set a hearing date for arguments against dismissing it?

Just asking since we don't know what transpired during the hearing do we?
Click to expand...
 
AZlawyer said:
They could drop DS, yes, but I think maybe they blame DS more than anyone, so I don't think they want to do that.

Yes, if any of the "Does" were identified as an AZ resident, that would destroy diversity jurisdiction.





If they drop the Estate of RZ as a plaintiff, some of the damages would not be recoverable. Some types of wrongful death damages "belong" to the deceased person (the estate) and others "belong" to the heirs.



No, the Does are no big deal. They don't reside anywhere unless and until identified. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you. I must have interpreted the case cited in AS's motion as any "Doe" automatically destroying diversity.
 
Hi all! Does anyone know where I can ask a question of a lawyer regarding another case? We have a search warrant question on the Kelly Dwyer case. TIA
 
Do you know if the "21 days" to respond to a motion to dismiss based on the FIRST defendant to respond, or the last?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9968975&postcount=615"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Estate of Rebecca Zahau et al v. Shacknai et al[/ame]

(Post 614 just preceeding has the document.)
 
Snoods said:
Hi all! Does anyone know where I can ask a question of a lawyer regarding another case? We have a search warrant question on the Kelly Dwyer case. TIA
Click to expand...

Hi Snoods, you can start a legal thread on the KD case and ask verified lawyers on WS to help out. HTH :seeya:
 
An amended complaint has been filed 11/11/13:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38773&d=1384237874

Along with MZL's declaration:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38774&d=1384239865

And a notice of filing amended complaint:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38775&d=1384239916

My question has to do with the "new" wording and listing of the plaintiffs, as compared to the original filing:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/16/Zahau Murder Part II.pdf

Is there any significance to the "new" ordered listing of the plaintiffs? Have they dropped the estate of RZ so as not to have an issue with Dina and Rebecca both being AZ residents?

I'm not sure if the "new" wording in the plaintiff list has relevance to the case, with regard to our previous discussion of diversity and federal filing. Can you comment?

Also, do you think that the amended complaint is an improvement over the concerns of the original complaint wording? There doesn't seem to be any new bombshells or specificity as to who is alleged to have done exactly what and when. Does the new complaint, in your opinion, better answer any of the criticisms in the motions to dismiss from the defendants?

TIA for sharing your thoughts, and answering questions!
 
time said:
AZ... could you comment on what is going on with the other case, asking for evidence.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the plaintiffs have failed to prosecute the case, and the judge is getting ready to dismiss it if they don't give him a good reason not to.

K_Z said:
Do you know if the "21 days" to respond to a motion to dismiss based on the FIRST defendant to respond, or the last?

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Estate of Rebecca Zahau et al v. Shacknai et al

(Post 614 just preceeding has the document.)
Click to expand...

The first. But IMO the judge will allow the amendment if he thinks it will fix the problems with the complaint.

K_Z said:
An amended complaint has been filed 11/11/13:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38773&d=1384237874

Along with MZL's declaration:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38774&d=1384239865

And a notice of filing amended complaint:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38775&d=1384239916

My question has to do with the "new" wording and listing of the plaintiffs, as compared to the original filing:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/16/Zahau Murder Part II.pdf

Is there any significance to the "new" ordered listing of the plaintiffs? Have they dropped the estate of RZ so as not to have an issue with Dina and Rebecca both being AZ residents?

I'm not sure if the "new" wording in the plaintiff list has relevance to the case, with regard to our previous discussion of diversity and federal filing. Can you comment?

Also, do you think that the amended complaint is an improvement over the concerns of the original complaint wording? There doesn't seem to be any new bombshells or specificity as to who is alleged to have done exactly what and when. Does the new complaint, in your opinion, better answer any of the criticisms in the motions to dismiss from the defendants?

TIA for sharing your thoughts, and answering questions!
Click to expand...

I don't see how the new proposed complaint fixes the diversity issue at all. They still recite that Becky and Dina were/are both residents of Arizona. They seem to have tried to fix the minor technical errors in the complaint but ignored the "elephant in the room." :confused:
 
AZ, can you comment on this recent action where the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was stricken and the Defendants Unopposed Motions to Dismiss were granted.

What would be next for the Plaintiffs?
 
time said:
AZ, can you comment on this recent action where the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was stricken and the Defendants Unopposed Motions to Dismiss were granted.

What would be next for the Plaintiffs?
Click to expand...

Apparently, what was next was to refile the Complaint in state court (which they should have done in the first place).

As I said before on this thread, I don't believe there is any California "savings statute" that would allow them to get around the statute of limitations. However, a quick Google search suggested that California has some case law that is pretty generous about allowing a refiling in state court after a timely federal action is dismissed.
 
Wanted to point out that legal documents links etc. can be put in the reference forum as Salem opened this up for us.


And many thanks for those that have so graciously and generously obtained legal documents for us.
 
Hi AZLawyer!

Could you help us understand why the federal case appears to be reopened? Carioca's post should provide you with some of the info needed. The federal case was closed because of the diversity issue but now appears it was reopened 7/8/2014, the same day the Zahau's filed their SAC. At this time the WDS state case is still showing open. TIA

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...13-2013-in-California&p=10979095#post10979095
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 173 more.
Total: 1,506 (members: 174, guests: 1,332)

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
1,332
Total visitors
1,506
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,508
Messages
18,048,854
Members
230,018
Latest member
twinkme
Back
Top