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:
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.
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?
Was there a hearing? It looks to me like the defendant's filed an order to show cause why the case shouldn't be dismissed with a proposed 12/6 hearing date and the Court entered an Order setting the hearing. I don't see where there actually has been a hearing, but I haven't been following closely.
jmo
eta: Never mind. I see that 180 days went by with no activity and that a party didn't file the OSC. They do it a little differently from state to state, I think, but it would be typical for the Court to take some action if a case has been inactive for that long just for docket management purposes. In some jurisdictions, they just put it on an inactive calendar then dismiss it if no one does anything to have it removed after a period of time. I'm not sure whether an OSC is how it's usually done in Cali, though.
If no one does nothing, then it does not exist?
Was there a hearing? It looks to me like the defendant's filed an order to show cause why the case shouldn't be dismissed with a proposed 12/6 hearing date and the Court entered an Order setting the hearing. I don't see where there actually has been a hearing, but I haven't been following closely.
jmo
eta: Never mind. I see that 180 days went by with no activity and that a party didn't file the OSC. They do it a little differently from state to state, I think, but it would be typical for the Court to take some action if a case has been inactive for that long just for docket management purposes. In some jurisdictions, they just put it on an inactive calendar then dismiss it if no one does anything to have it removed after a period of time. I'm not sure whether an OSC is how it's usually done in Cali, though.
I'm going to open this thread for discussion of the County lawsuit because the lawsuit is ongoing (and imo, will determine whether or not Zahou's file another WDS). BUT be warned that the discussion must stay on TOPIC.
If you have questions, please check with a moderator.
Thanks,
Salem
I keep wondering if a possible attempt to settle a civil lawsuit should have the power to stop a legitimate criminal investigation.
First, its wrong that a victim's family has to use such measures to gain access to evidence related to the suspicious death of a loved one. If the law and criminal justice system were working properly here, all of the evidence belonging to RZ and that related to her death should be made public. Her belongings should be returned to her family, as SDSO promised, they shouldn't have to be filing a civil suit for their return.
So how do we get to a place where a separate civil suit settlement has the power to essentially quash attempts to resolve a legitimate investigation of her death?
I follow the McStay case also... one thing that dawned on me today is that SDSO has also claimed there was no DNA evidence in their SUV other than their own. This could be true, but I am curious about whether they are sloppy on that forensic end of things. Unfortunately, I don't know if we will find out anytime soon about the McStay DNA in the SUV. The San Bernadino Sheriff's Office is now the lead on their case.
TIME! I think it far more than just coincidence the patriarch of the MCSTAY family had this to say about the very same investigative group:
"In a telephone interview with CBS News' Crimesider on Friday, Patrick McStay called the San Diego Sheriff's Office, which spearheaded the investigation into his son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren's 2010 disappearance, the "dumbest, most corrupt organization" he's ever seen.
He said the department didn't even bother to contact him to tell him his son's remains had been found.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...lif-familys-2010-disappearance-botched-inept/
Apparently the father tried to get the detective to look at leads that were found on the computer and emails, but the detective refused. Even stranger Jan Caldwell, issued another one of her "un-stellar" PR clips claiming the father's angry words were generated by grief. (You can read the article and decide for yourselves....but there seems to be a pattern in SDSO of not communicating with the families or following up on the leads provided....which I think is a lot like the Coronado investigation!)
It is interesting to note that the FBI is looking into issues with San Diego Ex-Mayor Filner not only for his "Mr. Grabby" episodes but for questionable payments with regards to developers.
"The FBI is looking into his dealings with two developers who paid the city $100,000 each at Filner’s suggestion after the mayor put a hold on their projects.
The money went to a veterans program and a bike event, city projects that Filner supported. What investigators are specifically looking at is not known. The U.S. attorney has declined to comment or even confirm there is a probe, but sources have said the FBI has made inquiries about the payments."
Generally the relationship between the Mayor and the Sheriff is a pretty tight one. It does make you wonder what else is going on in San Diego.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013...al-probe-of-filner-under-way-civil/all/?print
"On July 19, the Sheriff’s Department set up a hotline after several women came forward to allege that Filner had touched them inappropriately. The state Attorney General’s Office has been designated to prosecute any criminal charges that may arise from complaints about Filner’s conduct. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who ran against Filner in the 2012 mayor’s race, removed her office from prosecuting any criminal cases that may be brought. "
It is good to see the AG's office getting very involved. Dumanis declined to prosecute? I have a feeling this is the tip of the iceberg in San Diego.
16
11/18/2013
Motion - Other (of appearance and legal representation : declaration of Attorney David A Miller in support thereof) filed by Horwath, Snowem.
Horwath, Snowem (Plaintiff)