Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California

Status
Not open for further replies.

Salem

Former Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
29,151
Reaction score
129
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
 

Salem

Former Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
29,151
Reaction score
129
Here are the posts from the County Lawsuit thread:

(Since WDS thread is closed, am posting this here)
WDS has been refiled in Superior Court State of CA

Greer & Associates
Gaston & Gaston
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
REBECCA ZAHAU, deceased,
ROBERT ZAHAU, deceased,
ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU,
ESTATE OF ROBERT ZAHAU,
MARY ZAHAU-LOEHNER,
and PART Z. ZAHAU

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

[…] EQUITABLE TOLLING
4. On July 12, 2013, one day prior to the two-year statute of limitations expiring on claims arising from the July 13, 2011 murder of Rebecca Zahau, Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants ADAM SHACKNAI, DINA SHACKNAI, NINA ROMANO and DOES 1 through 50, in the United States District Court, Southern District of California (Case Number:13-CV-1624-W-NLS) based on diversity jurisdiction over the first cause of action (wrongful death) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and supplemental jurisdiction over the second cause °faction (assault and battery), third cause of action (negligence) and fourth cause of action (conversion) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (collectively, the "survival actions").

5. On November 12, 2013, the District Court dismissed the federal action without prejudice.

6. Therefore, the statute of limitations for all causes of action of the named Plaintiffs arising from the murder of Rebecca Zahau are tolled under the doctrine of equitable tolling to this date, November 13, 2013. Thus, this action is timely filed.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.

37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

entry date: 11/14/2013
Civil Case Management Conference scheduled for 08/01/2014 at 10:30:00 AM at Central in C-67 William S. Dato.

Zahau lawyer Greer had REFILED WDS in Superior Court of San Diego, CA on 11/14/2013.

Statute of limitations has been "tolled" on basis of *Equitable tolling*.

37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

So the WDS proceeds. Case management conference is scheduled for Aug. 1, 2014 with Judge William S. Dato. :loveyou:

So long defendants. Good riddance. Hope you get CP and not just :jail:

JUSTICE for REBECCA ZAHAU and her family.

So happy about this. But what does "case management conference" mean? August 1??? The wheels of justice sure move slowly. But it will allow the defendants time to get their personal affairs in order before they are taken away.

:floorlaugh:

I just noticed that.... hopefully it means January 8th 2014


I'm hopeful we will be able to have a new thread for this newly filed case. Until then, I thought I'd post the entire re-filed Wrongful Death civil suit pdf here:

14 pages

View attachment 38960

Thank you for posting that, K_Z. I know we have discussed here the mention in the suit that Rebecca's parents were dependent on her for some level of support. The phrase that strikes me is that plaintiffs are entitled to funeral and burial costs. The LHK troop would have you believe that Jonah paid for the entire thing.

Also...reading through this document, plus earlier today I read Dr. Bove's report on Max--when I stand back and look at the big picture, I see Dina's entire play to re-open Max's case as nothing but smoke and mirrors to distract from looking directly at her for clues in Rebecca's death. I know this sounds harsh, but I cannot help considering that Dina exploited her son's death to shield herself. I hope I am wrong, but IMO it has this appearance.

Sorry, Salem, I know I am OT, I don't see a new thread yet for the refiling of the WDS.

Am giving a shout-out and wave to Carioca for posting about the refiling of the suit first :loser:

I communicated with AZlawyer. She says that the Addison case in CA will save the Zahau's claim for "Equitable Tolling". So I looked up the case.

Here are more info, BBM, on what equitable tolling does with respect to the law and how it balances justice for the plaintiffs and defendants, and how it applies to the Zahau, Addison and other cases: http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/addison-v-state-california-30505

"We have previously indicated that the equitable tolling doctrine fosters the policy of the law of this state which favors avoiding forfeitures [21 Cal.3d 321] and allowing good faith litigants their day in court. [2b] As with other general equitable principles, application of the equitable tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public interest or policy expressed by the Tort Claims Act limitations statute. (See City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496-497 [91 Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 423]; Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297 [61 Cal.Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245].)

[1d] In our view, the balance in this case must be struck in plaintiffs' favor. If the tolling doctrine were not applied, plaintiffs would be denied a hearing on the merits of their claim. The doctrine's application, on the other hand, should not substantially undermine the policy of prompt resolution of claims. As we have noted, plaintiffs filed their state court action within nine months after their right to sue arose and by reason of the federal suit, defendants were fully notified within the six-month statutory period of plaintiffs' claims and their intent to litigate. Defendants were informed at all times of the nature of plaintiffs' claims. Any delay resulting from plaintiffs' original erroneous choice of forum was minimal. Unlike our decision in Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, supra, 68 Cal.2d 599 which raised the prospect of a 21-year tolling period, under the circumstances herein minimal uncertainty or delay could result when the limitations period is tolled during pendency of a timely filed federal suit subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."

Kudos to the Zahau lawyers for making STRONGER and CLEARER statements about the culpability of the defendants in Rebecca's MURDER in this refiled WDS (BBM):

"GENERAL ALLEGATIONS/ STATEMENT OF FACTS

17. On or around the morning of July 13, 2011, Defendants ADAM, DNA
NINA, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, conspired to plan, and did
in fact, murder REBECCA ZAHAU
in Coronado, California
."

I like this plain, articulate, concise language, as I'm certain the new judge does too :loser: Excellent, Zahau lawyers!
 

Salem

Former Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
29,151
Reaction score
129
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
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,460

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,460
From the complaint:

19. Each of the Defendants named herein were present at the location where the murder of REBECCA occurred and all of them actively participated in the planning, implementation, execution and subsequent concealment of the scheme to murder REBECCA.

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.
 

Sharyne

052621-060721
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
354
Reaction score
257
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.

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.
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,460
SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
ADAM SHACICNAI, an individual; DINA SHACKNAI, an individual; NINA ROMANO, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
REBECCA ZAHAU, deceased, through her personal representative, MARY ZAHAU-LOEHNER: ROBERT ZAHAU,deceased,through his personal representative, MARY ZAHAU-LOEHNER; ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU;ESTATE OF ROBERT ZAHAU; both estates represented by MARY ZAHAU-LOEHNER, an individual; and PART Z. ZAHAU, an individual,
CENTrA:--- OrF celz Us , Ls‘ D ri V DI S 10 g; OWL 8 /77"— i c zi t 1. El 0I R3 :0 V t 3 p 2 u_ ESaS EcRo CyC r."
SUM-100
FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO OE LA CORTE)

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.goviselthelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

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.
 

*Lash*

Justice 4 Rebecca
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
58
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!
 

*Lash*

Justice 4 Rebecca
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
58
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.

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?
 

kittychi

Active Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
0
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.

And "jury trial demanded." Excellent.
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,460
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?

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

2013 California Rules of Court

Rule 2.253. Permissive electronic filing, mandatory electronic filing, and electronic filing by court order

(b) Mandatory electronic filing

A court may require parties by local rule to electronically file documents in civil actions directly with the court, or directly with the court and through one or more approved electronic filing service providers, or through more than one approved electronic filing service provider, subject to the conditions in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, the rules in this chapter, and the following conditions:

(1)The court must specify the types or categories of civil actions in which parties are required to file and serve documents electronically. The court may designate any of the following as eligible for mandatory electronic filing and service:

(A)All civil cases;


Subdivision (b)(1). This subdivision allows courts to institute mandatory electronic filing and service in any type of civil case for which the court determines that mandatory electronic filing is appropriate. The scope of this authorization is meant to be broad. It will enable courts to implement mandatory electronic filing in a flexible yet expansive manner.
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,460
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.

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
 

*Lash*

Justice 4 Rebecca
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
58
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.
 

screecher

"Dina is going to kill me!"
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,699
Reaction score
13
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.
 

Mrs. Holmes

New Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
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.

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. :)
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,460
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. :)

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.

San Diego Homicide Detective Angela TsuidaNamed California Homicide Investigators Association’s 2010 CHIA Investigator of the Year

Written by Kay Ochi

Angela Tsuida, Homicide Detective from San Diego, was named California Homicide Investigators Association’s 2010CHIA Investigator of the Year at their annual conference in Las Vegas in March. A nineteen-year veteran of the San DiegoSheriff’s Department, Tsuida, a yonsei originally from Chula Vista, has worked in the Homicide Unit for the last four years

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.
 

Karmady

Former Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
15
I did a little more reading about serving complaints in CA civil cases. THe complaint may have been served by mail, also. However it was done, I suspect the complaint has already been served on the defendants.

Here is the California Code of Civil Procedure section on serving complaints:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=415.10-415.95

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
 

Mrs. Holmes

New Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top