Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #85

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. June 22 is quite a delay. Over 5 weeks from now? With a case management mtg in early July for a jury trial due to start in August? Would we expect the judge to rule in court on the 22nd?

We can't see the materials but there's a new entry in the estate file on the clerk site. It's for a petition for an "administrator ad litem" to be appointed to defend the "independent action." It was reported when the wrongful death suit was filed that the appointed curator had no duty to respond.

"The curator of Laundrie’s estate, Barry Spivey, told Fox News Digital that one of his primary functions as a limited curator “is to accept service of a summons on that lawsuit,” but he has “absolutely no responsibility to respond to it.” Gabby Petito’s mom files lawsuit against Brian Laundrie’s estate

There's no one else to respond. The way things are right now the L's don't have standing I wouldn't think. So maybe this is so someone can respond?

The trial isn't until August 2023.

The date of the MTD is pretty normal. It gives the plaintiff's time to respond. Civil cases take a very long time.

ETA: The defendants can then file a rebuttal to The Response to the MTD. The Judge likely won't decide on the MTD during oral argument on June 22. Usually, a written decision comes after.
 
The trial isn't until August 2023.

The date of the MTD is pretty normal. It gives the plaintiff's time to respond. Civil cases take a very long time.

ETA: The defendants can then file a rebuttal to The Response to the MTD. The Judge likely won't decide on the MTD during oral argument on June 22. Usually, a written decision comes after.
Thank you!!! I had misread the trial date (tiny phone print!) and thought it was this August. Since it's not, 5 weeks doesn't seem so far away. I knew civil cases often dragged along but I admit I did not know the actual trial dates were set so very far in advance-- a few months short of 1 1/2 years? Wow.

I wonder if the plaintiffs will respond to the MTD? Last time they were pretty much told to resubmit by the judge to correct procedural errors. But it seemed to me they didn't proactively respond to many of the defense arguments in the original MTD. Maybe they are confident they will prevail and get to trial.
 
Thank you!!! I had misread the trial date (tiny phone print!) and thought it was this August. Since it's not, 5 weeks doesn't seem so far away. I knew civil cases often dragged along but I admit I did not know the actual trial dates were set so very far in advance-- a few months short of 1 1/2 years? Wow.

I wonder if the plaintiffs will respond to the MTD? Last time they were pretty much told to resubmit by the judge to correct procedural errors. But it seemed to me they didn't proactively respond to many of the defense arguments in the original MTD. Maybe they are confident they will prevail and get to trial.

More often than not, the Plaintiffs will respond to the MTD. It would be a disservice if they didn't.
 

Plaintiff’s initial witness list​

  • Joseph Petito (Gabby Petito’s father)
  • Nichole Schmidt (Gabby Petito’s mother)
  • Tara Petito (Gabby Petito’s stepmother)
  • James Schmidt (Gabby Petito’s stepfather)
  • Christopher Laundrie (Brian Laundrie’s father)
  • Roberta Laundrie (Brian Laundrie’s mother)
  • Representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Names not specified)
  • Representatives of the North Port Police Department (Names not specified)
 
Here are both sides' filings for their initial witness and exhibit lists.
 

Attachments

  • Petito Initial Dislosure of Witnesses and Exhibits.pdf
    265 KB · Views: 15
  • Laundrie Initial Witness and Exhibit List.pdf
    385.8 KB · Views: 12
Here are both sides' filings for their initial witness and exhibit lists.
So, pretty much anybody. LOL.

Kinda skeptical that law enforcement is gonna acknowledge that they in any way were aware of any legal wrongdoing of the defendants.

I still see this heading for law enforcement (and others) testifying that the defendants didn't spill their guts (if there was even anything to spill)... and then the plaintiffs testifying that they think such non-spilling is atrocious.
 
The filings follow a familiar pattern, The Petito family lawyers speak colloquially using nicknames, while the Laudrie lawyers write like lawyers. It may not mean much in the end, but the difference in tone is striking.

What I find interesting is that that are no named third parties (other than the step-parents). No travel agents or travel websites are listed to corroborate the get-out-of-the-country allegation. There is no named party or source that could prove the L's knew Gabby was dead, or where her body was located. At some point, the Petito family has to address the source of these allegations or face a possible slander suit.

The law firm representing the Petito's seems to be a general practice firm - I wonder if they have taken this case on contingency, hoping to collect a big judgment or create good publicity - or if the Petito family is paying up front.
 
Thanks for the post.

Some of the responses to the tweet are frightening though. I get that people see this case in different ways. Personally I do not think the L's had a duty to talk to the P's. I realize people disagree. But regardless, one tweet says he/she hopes the P's "prove their case" so the L's will "rot in jail." Another says Cassie should be questioned by the P's in this case because if she knew anything she "had a responsibility to say something" and she "could have" lied to LE. I guess the P's civil action should be a total fishing expedition and if any "wrongdoing" is found, the P's should immediately send those people to jail to rot too.

The people tweeting are the who sometimes end up on juries. Imagine you or a loved one were wrongfully accused (either civilly or criminally) and had to face a jury of those folks. Scary.
 
Just saw this:

Petito Family's Witness List Includes Laundrie's Parents: Lawsuit​

As a civil lawsuit against Laundrie's parents related to Gabby Petito's death moves forward in FL, her family plans to have them testify.​

Posted Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:49 am ET
SARASOTA COUNTY, FL — Gabby Petito's family filed its initial witness list Friday in their civil lawsuit against Brian Laundrie's parents.
[...]
"While Gabrielle Petito's family was suffering, the Laundrie family went on vacation to Fort De Soto Park," according to the Petito family complaint. "They went on vacation knowing that Brian Laundrie had murdered Gabrielle Petito, it is believed that they knew where her body was located and further knew that Gabrielle Petito's parents were attempting to locate her."
The family said Laundrie's parents also stopped communicating with them and Roberta Laundrie even blocked Schmidt, Petito's mother, on her cell phone and on Facebook.
The Laundries, knowing Petito was dead, continued to publicly issue statements that they hoped Petito would be found and reunited with her family, the lawsuit claims.
"For the Laundries to express their 'hope' that Gabrielle Petito was located and reunited with her family, at a time when they knew she had been murdered by their son was beyond outrageous," the complaint said.
----------------------------------
Much more here:
 
The family said Laundrie's parents also stopped communicating with them and Roberta Laundrie even blocked Schmidt, Petito's mother, on her cell phone and on Facebook.
Snipped for focus.

It just occurred to me when reading that that maybe Brian was the one that blocked Schmidt on his mom's phone, and Roberta was oblivious to that fact. Hence her not receiving NS's messages.
 
Snipped for focus.

It just occurred to me when reading that that maybe Brian was the one that blocked Schmidt on his mom's phone, and Roberta was oblivious to that fact. Hence her not receiving NS's messages.
Hmmm, could be, could be, @Gemmie. Makes sense -- he was such a schemer, just a bit (!) paranoid, and a Narcissist. SMH.
 
I believe it was stated (by @Kristin Esq. I think) the plaintiffs had 20 days to respond to the defense's initial MTD. The MTD the Amended Complaint says at the end it was electronically filed on May 13 (as does the ClerkNet site), and that was 18 days ago. Would any response from the plaintiffs have to be filed in the next 2 days? Or since the hearing date has been set for June 22 do they have longer? Seems there would need to be a deadline sometime before the 22nd. Does anyone know? Thanks.
 
I believe it was stated (by @Kristin Esq. I think) the plaintiffs had 20 days to respond to the defense's initial MTD. The MTD the Amended Complaint says at the end it was electronically filed on May 13 (as does the ClerkNet site), and that was 18 days ago. Would any response from the plaintiffs have to be filed in the next 2 days? Or since the hearing date has been set for June 22 do they have longer? Seems there would need to be a deadline sometime before the 22nd. Does anyone know? Thanks.

21 days, which means they have until tomorrow. Also, it may be filed and just not up on the website yet.

ETA: I did just check the docket, and still no response yet.

 
A response has been filed to the MTD. I can't seem to attach it, got a message saying the file is too large so I must be doing something wrong. It can be found on Clerk Net 3.0. Search as as public user. ClerkNet 3.0

Not sure what to think. Does seem to argue law (for the first time really) but in an odd way IMO.
 
A response has been filed to the MTD. I can't seem to attach it, got a message saying the file is too large so I must be doing something wrong. It can be found on Clerk Net 3.0. Search as as public user. ClerkNet 3.0

Not sure what to think. Does seem to argue law (for the first time really) but in an odd way IMO.
I'll go read it now.
 
A response has been filed to the MTD. I can't seem to attach it, got a message saying the file is too large so I must be doing something wrong. It can be found on Clerk Net 3.0. Search as as public user. ClerkNet 3.0

Not sure what to think. Does seem to argue law (for the first time really) but in an odd way IMO.

I'm rather impressed. This is the level of writing I expected to see with the Complaint. For the first time, I think the MTD may not be granted. Very compelling arguments. MOO.
 
I saw the response wasn't filed until the 7th-- yesterday-- even though the deadline was supposed to be last week on Friday. Maybe with this judge deadlines are flexible but I always thought legal deadlines were set in concrete.

Not being an attorney I got awfully bogged down trying to read the response. (I found the defense papers much easier to read as a layperson and I felt I could understand the legal reasoning.)

Anyway, in trying to say the L's conduct was outrageous, the motion gives examples which have stood a court test for outrageousness (e.g., a doctor berating a patient [who couldn't talk due to a throat problem] in front of staff for nonpayment after patient was already undressed and robed for a throat x-ray) and some that failed a court test for outrageousness (e.g., calling an AA employee racial slurs, falsely accusing him of stealing, giving him more dangerous duties, taking away his break time, not allowing him to work with other AA employees, & firing him based on fake disciplinary records) Hmmm. Sounds pretty outrageous to me. But most examples (all, really) involved doing something-- even a denial of insurance coverage for a double lung transplant (another example that was considered outrageous but only because the company knew the person would die without a transplant and knew the patient also knew that.) So on the one hand, the pile of examples given made me feel like deciding an action is or isn't legally outrageous is like flipping a coin. And if that's true, how in the heck is an ordinary person supposed to know? And I'm not sure really what the argument was with all the examples except, "heck, nobody knows so why don't we say their actions were outrageous."

But I still don't see how failing to talk to someone is outrageous or how it's even an action. And at one point the motion states the L's "affirmatively chose to withhold information." I guess if a choice was involved that made it into an action? But at this point no proof has been offered that the L's knew GP was dead or knew where her body was, just that it is believed by the P's the L's knew. So is it up to the defense to prove they didn't have that information? How could they do that? How do you prove you didn't know something? I couldn't prove I didn't know where she was.
JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
1,448
Total visitors
1,536

Forum statistics

Threads
589,175
Messages
17,915,127
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top