Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,232
- Reaction score
- 131,804
BBM notice what they did there? Either it was predictable and so they really weren't astonished, or vice versa. Whoever penned the statement was being dishonest.
Wrongful Death Lawsuit Overview
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
New Posts
-
Australia Australia - Marion Barter - Missing After Trip to UK - June 1997 #22
- Latest: Lord Peter Flimsy
BBM notice what they did there? Either it was predictable and so they really weren't astonished, or vice versa. Whoever penned the statement was being dishonest.
KZ, youre a gem. Wiping spittle off my face! Hahaha.
One huge mistake they are making is to continue to call this a suicide.
After following this case for 7 years and reading comments from people literally all over the world, well, people do NOT believe its a suicide!! They will never hav any support by continuing to insist on suicide.
THEM: The empirer has new clothes.
REST OF THE WORLD: No, hes naked
Ive said it before, people are just not that stupid.
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 39,101
- Reaction score
- 407,354
San Diego Superior Court Case: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IM
ROA: #1142
Entry Date: 05/29/2018
Short/Long Entry: OSC - Failure to File Judgment scheduled for 06/29/2018 at 09:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IM
ROA: #1142
Entry Date: 05/29/2018
Short/Long Entry: OSC - Failure to File Judgment scheduled for 06/29/2018 at 09:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 39,101
- Reaction score
- 407,354
San Diego Superior Court Case: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IM
ROA: #1144
Entry Date: 06/29/2018
Short/Long Entry: Minutes finalized for OSC - Failure to File Judgment heard 06/29/2018 09:00:00 AM.
Document: Minute Order
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IM
ROA: #1144
Entry Date: 06/29/2018
Short/Long Entry: Minutes finalized for OSC - Failure to File Judgment heard 06/29/2018 09:00:00 AM.
Document: Minute Order
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 39,101
- Reaction score
- 407,354
San Diego Superior Court Case: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IMAGED]
ROA: #1145
Entry Date: 07/10/218
Short/Long Entry: Objections filed by Shacknai, Adam.
Shacknais Objections to Proposed Judgment on Special Verdict-Wrongful Death and Proposed Judgment on Special Verdict-Battery
______________________________________________________
Objections to [Proposed] Judgments
Pursuant to Rule 3.1590(j) ofthe California Rules of Court, Defendant Adam Shacknai (“Defendant”) submits the following objections to the following filings submitted Plaintiff Pari Zahau (“Plaintiff’): 1) Proposed Judgment on Special Verdict—Wrongful Death (the “Wrongful Death Proposed Judgment”); and 2) Proposed Judgment on Special Verdict—Battery (the “Battery Proposed Judgment”) (collectively, the “Proposed Judgments”). 1
Defendant’s objections are timely because Plaintiff served the Proposed Judgments by email on June 28, 2018, pursuant to the parties’ e-mail service agreement. Defendant objects to the Proposed Judgments on three grounds.
First, Defendant objects to Plaintiffs attempt to improperly seek multiple judgments in this case, instead of one. Second, neither of the Proposed Judgments make any reference to the Third Cause of Action (for Conversion) of the Fourth Amended Complaint, which the Court granted Defendant’s favor. Third, the Proposed Judgments are vague, ambiguous, and wrong in that they purport to award to Plaintiff all “costs and disbursements.”
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS
OBJECTION NO. 1
Defendant objects because Plaintiff has submitted two proposed judgments. Courts have explained that “as a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action. A final, ordinarily single, judgment is a prerequisite to appealing from an action, its purpose to avoid piecemeal appeals.” Cuevas v. Truline Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 56, 60 (citations and internal quotation omitted). Also called the “one judgment rule,” id., “[t] his rule mandates that under California procedure there is ordinarily only one final judgment in an action.” Lemaire v. All City Employees Assn. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 106, 109. See also Pastor v. Younis (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 259, 264 (“It is well established that there can be but one judgment in an action as between the same parties and that is a judgment which determines all matters in controversy between them in the action.”); Israel v. Campbell (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 806, 820 (“Issues
__________________________________
1 Because the filed versions of the Proposed Judgments are not yet accessible from the Court, Defendant has not yet had the opportunity to inspect these documents as filed. Thus, the objections here are based on the format of the copies of the filed proposed judgments that were served on Defendant, and Defendant reserves the right to make further objections based on the filed versions if necessary.
______________________________________
between the same parties should not be decided piecemeal in the same litigation but should be settled in one set offindings and one judgment.”); Nicholson v. Henderson (1944) 25 Cal.2d 375, 378 (“[A]s a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action.”). As noted above, the Proposed Judgments served on Defendant are two separate, distinct documents: one for the wrongful death cause of action, and one for the battery cause of action. Judgments routinely address more than one cause of action, and the “one judgment rule” is specifically construed to interpret a single judgment as addressing all related causes of action. Hart v. Browne (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 947, 951 n.l (“Since California’s ‘one judgment rule’ mandates that there is ordinarily only one final judgment in an action, this court construes the judgment rendered in the instant action as encompassing all related causes of action.”) (citation omitted). Defendant is not aware of any case approving the entry of final judgments issued in the piecemeal fashion proposed by Plaintiff. This unconventional format is likely to cause significant prejudice against Defendant who, if the judgment is issued as proposed, may be required to prepare two separate appeals, even where such appeals rely on identical issues, or at least largely overlapping issues, at trial. This would unnecessarily waste judicial resources, and the parties’ resources, at the appellate level. For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an order sustaining Defendant’s Objection No. 1 to the Proposed Judgments.
OBJECTIONS NO. 2
Defendant also objects to the Proposed Judgments because they fail to address the Third Cause of Action in the operative Fourth Amended Complaint (for Conversion). On March 20, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s non suit motion as to Plaintiffs conversion claim. Trial Tr. 2273:9-15.
The Code of Civil Procedure specifically requires that if a non suit motion is granted as to any cause of action, the Court’s ruling must be reflected in the final judgment: “Despite the granting of the motion, no final judgment shall be entered prior to the termination of the action, but the final judgment in the action shall, in addition to any matters determined in the trial, award judgment as determined by the motion herein provided for.” Code Civ. Proc. 581c(b).
As noted above, the “one judgment rule” requires courts to enter a judgment “encompassing all related causes of action.” Hart, 103 Cal.App.3d at 951 n.l. Since Plaintiff has failed to address entry of judgment in Defendant’s favor as to the conversion claim, Defendant objects to the proposed judgments submitted.
If judgment were entered that did not reference the Third Cause of Action (for Conversion), then, despite the Plaintiffs failure to provide any evidence to support that claim, and the Court’s granting of non suit as to that claim, the Court of Appeal could construe the judgment against Defendant, creating additional potential liability and prejudice even where the judgment on that claim allowed none. Plaintiff could also seek to collect costs or disbursements related to that cause of action despite the Court’s order granting non suit. The Proposed Judgments’ failure to address the cause of action on which Defendant prevailed thus further tilts the balance away from Defendant, and indicates the Proposed Judgments should be rejected by the court.
For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an order sustaining Defendant’s Objection No. 2 to the Proposed Judgments.
OBJECTION NO. 3
Defendant objects to the Proposed Judgments as vague, ambiguous, and wrong because they seek to have the Court summarily award recovery of “costs and disbursements according to proof.” Wrongful Death Proposed Judgment at 2:25-26; Battery Proposed Judgment at 2:17-19. First, the term “disbursements” was specifically removed from Code of Civil Procedure section 1021. Second, Plaintiff does not define the term “costs.” Therefore, the Proposed Judgments are vague and ambiguous.
Defendant objects to the Proposed Judgments based on their failure to detail either the actual costs and disbursements Plaintiff is claiming or the process by which any such costs/disbursements will be assessed and levied. California law makes it clear that several items cannot be included as recoverable costs, except when expressly authorized by law. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(b). These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Fees of experts not ordered by the court.
2. Investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial.
3. Postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except for exhibits.
4. Costs in investigation of jurors or in preparation for voir dire.
5. Transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court.
See id. Under this statute, it is clear that, Defendant cannot be forced to pay such costs. Plaintiff has not only failed to indicate the total costs and disbursements to be required by the judgment— which are often included in a final judgment—she has also failed to make reference to any forthcoming Memorandum of Costs or any further Order of this Court in the event of a Motion to Tax Costs. See Cal. Rule of Court 3.1700(b).
The question of costs and disbursements is further convoluted by the fact that, as discussed above in Objection No. 1, the Plaintiff has submitted two separate Proposed Judgments, each one requesting “costs and disbursements.” The submission of more than one proposed judgment contrary to normal practice and not consistent with California law. Courts have explained that “as a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action. A final, ordinarily single, judgment is a prerequisite to appealing from an action, its purpose to avoid piecemeal appeals.” Cuevas, 118 Cal.App.4th 56, 60 (citations and internal quotation omitted). Also called the “one judgment rule,” id., “[t]his rule mandates that under California procedure there is ordinarily only one final judgment in an action.” Lemaire, 35 Cal.App.3d at 109; see also Pastor, 238 Cal.App.2d at 264 (“It is well established that there can be but one judgment in an action as between the same parties and that is a judgment which determines all matters in controversy between them in the action.”); Israel, 163 Cal.App.2d at 820 (“Issues between the same parties should not be decided piecemeal in the same litigation but should be settled in one set of findings and one judgment.”); Nicholson, 25 Cal.2d at 378 (“[A]s a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action.”). Plaintiffs improper submission of two proposed judgments (one for wrongful death, and one for battery) results in two separate requests for costs, despite the fact that the two referenced causes of action were tried in the same trial, based on common evidence and shared costs. It would be inappropriate for the Court to award these common costs twice— once for each Proposed Judgment. Based on the Proposed Judgments as submitted, it is unclear how much costs or disbursements may overlap between the wrongful death and battery causes of action, and to the extent that they do, which costs would be allocated to which Proposed Judgment. This is just one problem caused by the failure to follow the “one judgment rule.”
Finally, as the Third Cause of Action (for conversion) relied on separate facts from the wrongful death and battery claims (i.e. allegations that Mr. Shacknai removed the “clothes that she was last seen publicly in on July 12, 2011 (see Fourth Amended Complaint at 28-29)), Defendant objects that costs incurred related to that cause of action should not be included in any judgment, given that the court granted non suit as to that cause of action on March 20, 2018. See Environmental Prot. Info, Ctr. v. California Dep’t of Forestry & Fire Prot. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 217, 238 (adopting the approach set forth by Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424 that work on an unsuccessful and unrelated claim generally will not be compensable as it “cannot be deemed to have been ‘expended in pursuit of the ultimate result achieved.’”)
For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an order sustaining Defendant’s Objection No. 3 to the Proposed Judgments.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court sustain each of Defendant’s objections to the Proposed Judgments.
Dated: July 10, 2018
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IMAGED]
ROA: #1145
Entry Date: 07/10/218
Short/Long Entry: Objections filed by Shacknai, Adam.
Shacknais Objections to Proposed Judgment on Special Verdict-Wrongful Death and Proposed Judgment on Special Verdict-Battery
______________________________________________________
Objections to [Proposed] Judgments
Pursuant to Rule 3.1590(j) ofthe California Rules of Court, Defendant Adam Shacknai (“Defendant”) submits the following objections to the following filings submitted Plaintiff Pari Zahau (“Plaintiff’): 1) Proposed Judgment on Special Verdict—Wrongful Death (the “Wrongful Death Proposed Judgment”); and 2) Proposed Judgment on Special Verdict—Battery (the “Battery Proposed Judgment”) (collectively, the “Proposed Judgments”). 1
Defendant’s objections are timely because Plaintiff served the Proposed Judgments by email on June 28, 2018, pursuant to the parties’ e-mail service agreement. Defendant objects to the Proposed Judgments on three grounds.
First, Defendant objects to Plaintiffs attempt to improperly seek multiple judgments in this case, instead of one. Second, neither of the Proposed Judgments make any reference to the Third Cause of Action (for Conversion) of the Fourth Amended Complaint, which the Court granted Defendant’s favor. Third, the Proposed Judgments are vague, ambiguous, and wrong in that they purport to award to Plaintiff all “costs and disbursements.”
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS
OBJECTION NO. 1
Defendant objects because Plaintiff has submitted two proposed judgments. Courts have explained that “as a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action. A final, ordinarily single, judgment is a prerequisite to appealing from an action, its purpose to avoid piecemeal appeals.” Cuevas v. Truline Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 56, 60 (citations and internal quotation omitted). Also called the “one judgment rule,” id., “[t] his rule mandates that under California procedure there is ordinarily only one final judgment in an action.” Lemaire v. All City Employees Assn. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 106, 109. See also Pastor v. Younis (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 259, 264 (“It is well established that there can be but one judgment in an action as between the same parties and that is a judgment which determines all matters in controversy between them in the action.”); Israel v. Campbell (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 806, 820 (“Issues
__________________________________
1 Because the filed versions of the Proposed Judgments are not yet accessible from the Court, Defendant has not yet had the opportunity to inspect these documents as filed. Thus, the objections here are based on the format of the copies of the filed proposed judgments that were served on Defendant, and Defendant reserves the right to make further objections based on the filed versions if necessary.
______________________________________
between the same parties should not be decided piecemeal in the same litigation but should be settled in one set offindings and one judgment.”); Nicholson v. Henderson (1944) 25 Cal.2d 375, 378 (“[A]s a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action.”). As noted above, the Proposed Judgments served on Defendant are two separate, distinct documents: one for the wrongful death cause of action, and one for the battery cause of action. Judgments routinely address more than one cause of action, and the “one judgment rule” is specifically construed to interpret a single judgment as addressing all related causes of action. Hart v. Browne (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 947, 951 n.l (“Since California’s ‘one judgment rule’ mandates that there is ordinarily only one final judgment in an action, this court construes the judgment rendered in the instant action as encompassing all related causes of action.”) (citation omitted). Defendant is not aware of any case approving the entry of final judgments issued in the piecemeal fashion proposed by Plaintiff. This unconventional format is likely to cause significant prejudice against Defendant who, if the judgment is issued as proposed, may be required to prepare two separate appeals, even where such appeals rely on identical issues, or at least largely overlapping issues, at trial. This would unnecessarily waste judicial resources, and the parties’ resources, at the appellate level. For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an order sustaining Defendant’s Objection No. 1 to the Proposed Judgments.
OBJECTIONS NO. 2
Defendant also objects to the Proposed Judgments because they fail to address the Third Cause of Action in the operative Fourth Amended Complaint (for Conversion). On March 20, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s non suit motion as to Plaintiffs conversion claim. Trial Tr. 2273:9-15.
The Code of Civil Procedure specifically requires that if a non suit motion is granted as to any cause of action, the Court’s ruling must be reflected in the final judgment: “Despite the granting of the motion, no final judgment shall be entered prior to the termination of the action, but the final judgment in the action shall, in addition to any matters determined in the trial, award judgment as determined by the motion herein provided for.” Code Civ. Proc. 581c(b).
As noted above, the “one judgment rule” requires courts to enter a judgment “encompassing all related causes of action.” Hart, 103 Cal.App.3d at 951 n.l. Since Plaintiff has failed to address entry of judgment in Defendant’s favor as to the conversion claim, Defendant objects to the proposed judgments submitted.
If judgment were entered that did not reference the Third Cause of Action (for Conversion), then, despite the Plaintiffs failure to provide any evidence to support that claim, and the Court’s granting of non suit as to that claim, the Court of Appeal could construe the judgment against Defendant, creating additional potential liability and prejudice even where the judgment on that claim allowed none. Plaintiff could also seek to collect costs or disbursements related to that cause of action despite the Court’s order granting non suit. The Proposed Judgments’ failure to address the cause of action on which Defendant prevailed thus further tilts the balance away from Defendant, and indicates the Proposed Judgments should be rejected by the court.
For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an order sustaining Defendant’s Objection No. 2 to the Proposed Judgments.
OBJECTION NO. 3
Defendant objects to the Proposed Judgments as vague, ambiguous, and wrong because they seek to have the Court summarily award recovery of “costs and disbursements according to proof.” Wrongful Death Proposed Judgment at 2:25-26; Battery Proposed Judgment at 2:17-19. First, the term “disbursements” was specifically removed from Code of Civil Procedure section 1021. Second, Plaintiff does not define the term “costs.” Therefore, the Proposed Judgments are vague and ambiguous.
Defendant objects to the Proposed Judgments based on their failure to detail either the actual costs and disbursements Plaintiff is claiming or the process by which any such costs/disbursements will be assessed and levied. California law makes it clear that several items cannot be included as recoverable costs, except when expressly authorized by law. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(b). These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Fees of experts not ordered by the court.
2. Investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial.
3. Postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except for exhibits.
4. Costs in investigation of jurors or in preparation for voir dire.
5. Transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court.
See id. Under this statute, it is clear that, Defendant cannot be forced to pay such costs. Plaintiff has not only failed to indicate the total costs and disbursements to be required by the judgment— which are often included in a final judgment—she has also failed to make reference to any forthcoming Memorandum of Costs or any further Order of this Court in the event of a Motion to Tax Costs. See Cal. Rule of Court 3.1700(b).
The question of costs and disbursements is further convoluted by the fact that, as discussed above in Objection No. 1, the Plaintiff has submitted two separate Proposed Judgments, each one requesting “costs and disbursements.” The submission of more than one proposed judgment contrary to normal practice and not consistent with California law. Courts have explained that “as a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action. A final, ordinarily single, judgment is a prerequisite to appealing from an action, its purpose to avoid piecemeal appeals.” Cuevas, 118 Cal.App.4th 56, 60 (citations and internal quotation omitted). Also called the “one judgment rule,” id., “[t]his rule mandates that under California procedure there is ordinarily only one final judgment in an action.” Lemaire, 35 Cal.App.3d at 109; see also Pastor, 238 Cal.App.2d at 264 (“It is well established that there can be but one judgment in an action as between the same parties and that is a judgment which determines all matters in controversy between them in the action.”); Israel, 163 Cal.App.2d at 820 (“Issues between the same parties should not be decided piecemeal in the same litigation but should be settled in one set of findings and one judgment.”); Nicholson, 25 Cal.2d at 378 (“[A]s a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action.”). Plaintiffs improper submission of two proposed judgments (one for wrongful death, and one for battery) results in two separate requests for costs, despite the fact that the two referenced causes of action were tried in the same trial, based on common evidence and shared costs. It would be inappropriate for the Court to award these common costs twice— once for each Proposed Judgment. Based on the Proposed Judgments as submitted, it is unclear how much costs or disbursements may overlap between the wrongful death and battery causes of action, and to the extent that they do, which costs would be allocated to which Proposed Judgment. This is just one problem caused by the failure to follow the “one judgment rule.”
Finally, as the Third Cause of Action (for conversion) relied on separate facts from the wrongful death and battery claims (i.e. allegations that Mr. Shacknai removed the “clothes that she was last seen publicly in on July 12, 2011 (see Fourth Amended Complaint at 28-29)), Defendant objects that costs incurred related to that cause of action should not be included in any judgment, given that the court granted non suit as to that cause of action on March 20, 2018. See Environmental Prot. Info, Ctr. v. California Dep’t of Forestry & Fire Prot. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 217, 238 (adopting the approach set forth by Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424 that work on an unsuccessful and unrelated claim generally will not be compensable as it “cannot be deemed to have been ‘expended in pursuit of the ultimate result achieved.’”)
For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an order sustaining Defendant’s Objection No. 3 to the Proposed Judgments.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court sustain each of Defendant’s objections to the Proposed Judgments.
Dated: July 10, 2018
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
Last edited:
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 39,101
- Reaction score
- 407,354
San Diego Superior Court Case: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IMAGED]
ROA: #1146
Entry Date: 07/17/218
Short/Long Entry: Judgment on Verdict (Proposed Judgments on Special Verdict) submitted by Pari Z. Zahau, on her own behalf, and on behalf of Rebecca Zahau, Deceased rejected on 07/17/2018.
Document: Notice to Filing Party SD
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IMAGED]
ROA: #1146
Entry Date: 07/17/218
Short/Long Entry: Judgment on Verdict (Proposed Judgments on Special Verdict) submitted by Pari Z. Zahau, on her own behalf, and on behalf of Rebecca Zahau, Deceased rejected on 07/17/2018.
Document: Notice to Filing Party SD
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 39,101
- Reaction score
- 407,354
San Diego Superior Court Case: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai
ROA #1156
ENTRY DATE: 11/19/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: OSC - Failure to File Judgment scheduled for 12/07/2018 at 09:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
ENTRY #1155
ENTRY DATE: 11/19/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Judgment was entered as follows: Judgment entered for Pari Z. Zahau, on her own behalf, and on behalf of Rebecca Zahau, Deceased and against Shacknai, Adam for $ 5167000.01, punitive damages: $ 0.00, attorney fees: $ 0.00, interest: $ 0.00, prejudgment costs: $ 0.00, other costs: $ 0.00, amount payable to court: $ .00, for a grand total of $ 5167000.01.
ROA #1154
ENTRY DATE: 11/05/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Objections filed by Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam.
FILED BY: Shacknai, Adam (Defendant); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant)
DOCUMENT: Def's Objections to Amended Proposed Judgment Served Oct 26, 2018
ROA #1153
ENTRY DATE: 11/05/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Objections filed by Shacknai, Adam.
FILED BY:
Shacknai, Adam (Defendant)
DOCUMENT: Defs Objections to Proposed Judgment Served Oct 26, 2018
ROA #1152
ENTRY DATE: 10/03/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Returned Mail (UNDELIVERABLE TO DREW ROBERTSON; NOTICE OF HRG ON OSC RE FAILURE TO FILE JMT) filed by The Superior Court of San Diego.
Refers to: Shacknai, Adam
ROA #1151
ENTRY DATE: 11/02/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Minutes finalized for OSC - Failure to File Judgment heard 11/02/2018 09:00:00 AM.
ROA # 1150
ENTRY DATE: 11/02/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: OSC - Failure to File Judgment continued pursuant to Court's motion to 12/07/2018 at 09:00AM before Judge Katherine Bacal.
ROA #1147
ENTRY DATE: 09/25/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: OSC - Failure to File Judgment scheduled for 11/02/2018 at 09:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.
DOCUMENT: Notice of Hearing SD
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/SearchResults.xhtml
Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai
ROA #1156
ENTRY DATE: 11/19/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: OSC - Failure to File Judgment scheduled for 12/07/2018 at 09:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
ENTRY #1155
ENTRY DATE: 11/19/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Judgment was entered as follows: Judgment entered for Pari Z. Zahau, on her own behalf, and on behalf of Rebecca Zahau, Deceased and against Shacknai, Adam for $ 5167000.01, punitive damages: $ 0.00, attorney fees: $ 0.00, interest: $ 0.00, prejudgment costs: $ 0.00, other costs: $ 0.00, amount payable to court: $ .00, for a grand total of $ 5167000.01.
ROA #1154
ENTRY DATE: 11/05/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Objections filed by Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Adam.
FILED BY: Shacknai, Adam (Defendant); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant)
DOCUMENT: Def's Objections to Amended Proposed Judgment Served Oct 26, 2018
ROA #1153
ENTRY DATE: 11/05/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Objections filed by Shacknai, Adam.
FILED BY:
Shacknai, Adam (Defendant)
DOCUMENT: Defs Objections to Proposed Judgment Served Oct 26, 2018
ROA #1152
ENTRY DATE: 10/03/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Returned Mail (UNDELIVERABLE TO DREW ROBERTSON; NOTICE OF HRG ON OSC RE FAILURE TO FILE JMT) filed by The Superior Court of San Diego.
Refers to: Shacknai, Adam
ROA #1151
ENTRY DATE: 11/02/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: Minutes finalized for OSC - Failure to File Judgment heard 11/02/2018 09:00:00 AM.
ROA # 1150
ENTRY DATE: 11/02/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: OSC - Failure to File Judgment continued pursuant to Court's motion to 12/07/2018 at 09:00AM before Judge Katherine Bacal.
ROA #1147
ENTRY DATE: 09/25/2018
SHORT/LONG ENTRY: OSC - Failure to File Judgment scheduled for 11/02/2018 at 09:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.
DOCUMENT: Notice of Hearing SD
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/SearchResults.xhtml