Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California

Discussion in 'Rebecca Zahau Nalepa' started by Salem, Nov 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Salem

    Salem Former Member

    Messages:
    29,160
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am opening this thread for discussion of the wrongful death suit filed on the 13th. Please stay on topic. Please do not bicker or derail the thread with information that is not pertinent.

    Thanks,

    Salem
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Salem

    Salem Former Member

    Messages:
    29,160
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here are the posts from the County Lawsuit thread:

     
  4. Salem

    Salem Former Member

    Messages:
    29,160
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    HEADS UP - Please stay on topic. This is the WDS thread. There is a media thread, which is NO DISCUSSION, and a thread for the County Law Suit to obtain information on the investigation.

    Be mindful of where you post or your post will disappear.


    Thanks,

    Salem

    ETA: I will also reopen the thread for Attorney questions and again, please stay on topic and ONLY ask questions of our verified lawyers (thank you so much AZLawyer!)

    Salem
     
  5. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
  6. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38

    Attached Files:

  7. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    From the complaint:

    Red and BBM. Complaint alleges EACH of them were PRESENT and ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED. As we discussed before, Adam and Nina both are admitted to being at the mansion. Dina is again alleged to be present, despite the reported cell phone pings relied upon by SDSO to attempt to verify her location. And again, I think Bicycle Dad and family could be important witnesses.

    The Plaintiffs and attorneys are not shying away from using the word "murder," I notice.
     
  8. Sharyne

    Sharyne 4-16

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Thank you for that information. Do the plaintiffs have to give to the defendants a list of the witnesses before it goes to trial? Do the defendants get a chance to depose the witnesses before trial? My reason for asking those questions is I wonder if there is a chance the witnesses have a need to worry about being approached and intimidated.
     
  9. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    BBM
    From the Summons (see pdf upthread)

    Federal rules were 120 days to respond from filing of complaing-- defendants have 30 days to respond under state of CA rules. So, by Dec 12 or so we should have responses from the defendants.
     
  10. *Lash*

    *Lash* Justice 4 Rebecca

    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Great news!

    A special thank you to all the attorneys for fighting the good fight :)

    It appears from a brief look the state WDS mirrors the federal corrected complaint. Off to read line by line. Have a great day everyone!
     
  11. *Lash*

    *Lash* Justice 4 Rebecca

    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The notice indicates the defendants have 30 calendar days to respond after they have been served the summons and legal papers. Do we know if the defendants have been served and/or will we know when they have been served?
     
  12. kittychi

    kittychi Active Member

    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    And "jury trial demanded." Excellent.
     
  13. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    IANAL, so I am not completely sure, but I did find this CA Statute about mandatory electronic filing and electronic service. There is also a notation under #4 on the Register of Actions that a summons was issued 11-14-2013 (no other accompanying document). I think that the parties have been served electronically, as I can't find anything that requires personal service in statute for this type of case. (I could be wrong, of course!)

    If 11-14 is the effective date of service, we should see something filed from them by 12-14-2013, I'd think. The defendants already have established relationships (and billing accounts!) with attorneys who represented them in the Federal case, so it shouldn't take long for them to respond to the state case, IMO.

    https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
    (Search under case 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL)

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two&linkid=rule2_253


     
  14. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
  15. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Absolutely, Sharyne. Both sides will have lists of witnesses-- regular witnesses, in addition to the named defendants, and potentially expert witnesses, as well. I think there is ALWAYS a very valid worry that witnesses will be intimidated or tampered with, in cases as contentious and high profile as this one.

    There will almost certainly be multiple depositions on both sides, if the case proceeds to discovery. There is a well-defined discovery process with depositions, interrogatories, evidence subpoenas, etc. in the California Code of Civil Procedure (linked below).

    State rules appear to be much more liberal for number of witnesses and depositions than Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which limit depositions to 10. It does not appear that state rules have limits on number of depositions/ deponents. That could be in the Plaintiffs favor, in this particular case (IMO).

    Here is the entire California Code of Civil Procedure (a little light reading, lol!):

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/ccp_table_of_contents.html

    (Discovery info begins around Chapter 5.)

    And some specifics on depositions and discovery:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=02001-03000&file=2019.010-2019.040

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=02001-03000&file=2017.010-2017.020

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=02001-03000&file=2020.210-2020.240
     
  16. *Lash*

    *Lash* Justice 4 Rebecca

    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    In my opinion, if a person is capable of torturing/murdering a woman and has help by a corrupt LE agency to cover their back, then they're definitely capable of witness tampering/intimidation. Completely logical thinking.
     
  17. screecher

    screecher "Dina is going to kill me!"

    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Including the ME's office. I mean, who the hell leaves a body, dead, bound, beaten and gagged, on the ground without screening, in the hot sun for 13+ hours?

    Absolutely witness tampering and intimidation. Corruption at it's best.

    BTW, I wonder why the initial lead detective went MIA after a few days? That's one person, IMO, who ought to be deposed.
     
  18. Mrs. Holmes

    Mrs. Holmes New Member

    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mittymick.... this is something I have not paid a great deal of attention to. Who was the lead detective and do you have any links I can read? Thanks in advance. :)
     
  19. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I'm not Mittymick, but I think the lead homicide detective originally was SD Homicide Det. Angela Tsuida, though this article says a team of detectives was involved in investigating both deaths. IIRC, I think I remember that it was Ann Rule in her book who identified Det. Tsuida as the lead detective. I think I remember her name was on some documents, also-- perhaps search warrants. (Perhaps a poster with better knowledge of her involvement will answer.)

    http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...ctives-assigned-to-coronado-'mansion-mystery'

    There are pictures that identify her at the Spreckles mansion during the first day of the investigation. I don't know what transpired, but I think she didn't continue on with either case. She is apparently quite well respected as a thorough investigator.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/37126792/Borderline-July-2010
    (Scroll way down for article)

    Ah-- found a little more. She was listed as supposed to attend the RZ autopsy, and didn't arrive. She is also listed on a search warrant for phone records:

    8/24/2011 - Search Warrant 11-164 - Detective Angela Tsuida requested phone records.

    I think it would definitely be interesting to hear what she would have to say, if she were deposed in this case.
     
  20. Karmady

    Karmady Former Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You should see a "return of service" or "proof of service" on the docket once the complaint is served.

    I have a link to a random "john smith" case showing how it looks, but not sure if I can post it since john smith has nothing to do with this case.

    jmo
     
  21. Mrs. Holmes

    Mrs. Holmes New Member

    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wanted to point out that legal documents links etc. can be put in the reference thread as Salem opened this up for us.


    And many thanks for those that have so graciously and generously obtained legal documents for us.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice