Re: Wrongful Death Lawsuit- discuss here

[Imp]

I really feel for Nalepa. That bwitch Dina is looking for 1) ways to drag this out, and more importantly 2) ways to further demonize Rebecca. What an incredibly vile creature she is. I don't understand why the judge seems to be helping the bwitch put the screws to NN, while also accommodating her non-lead attorney's family reunion. Sad.

[Lash]

521 and 522 added. Enjoy!

Side note: I laughed while reading the rescheduling for a family reunion. Really? Can you imagine telling an employer after 6 months of planning, booking the venue, we need to reschedule the annual department outing because I have a family reunion? Would not happen. I had a visual of the judge rolling her eyes. Good grief!

[~Bourne]

Happy new year everyone. Chinese New Year is this weekend! Year of the Rooster.

Thanks KZ, Lash and everyone else for keeping us posted on the Zahau case. Seems to be progressing, albeit slowly.

Does anyone know if IP is ok? Last we connected was in Dec. before the holidays...

[Admin]

I haven't heard from IP for a while.

On another note, I went back to see what motions had been filed on NN's behalf. They are #270 (47 pages) and #274 (5 pages) on the ROA, dated 2-2-16 and 2-10-16. Now I remember why this was so interesting-- NN was given a hearing date by the court in NOVEMBER 2016 for these motions filed in FEBRUARY. That very long 9 month gap awaiting a hearing on a protective order and to quash a subpoena was quite puzzling at the time. I'm looking back thry the whole ROA list, but am having some trouble determining if NN ever had any kind of hearing on his quash subpoena/ protective order request? Or is Dina simply requesting sanctions for a deposition she and her attorneys went ahead and scheduled before NN's motion was heard? Will post this in the WS thread as well.

270 02/02/2016 Motion for Protective Order (AND TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF A THIRD -PARTY WITNESS) filed by Nalepa, Neil. Nalepa, Neil (Interested Party) Motion for Protective Order

274 02/10/2016 Notice - Other (AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF THIRD PARTY WITNESS) filed by Nalepa, Neil. Nalepa, Neil (Interested Party) Notice - Other

[~Bourne]

I may be able to help regarding NN's deposition.

The last time I spoke with IP, she said NN's lawyer was stalling the deposition and trying his hardest to get it quashed. I think we found out he was unsuccessful because both Dina's lawyer AND Greer made statements that convinced the Judge to allow the deposition to take place.

I asked why not just get it over with -- as Luber's wife did -- since he was not in CA and no evidence exonerating Dina and her puppet co-conspiratory murderers would be found. But IP said Dina was fishing for her and other integral innocent people's identities via NN's deposition. Dina's motion asked for ALL of NN's correspondences during that time period, including all his emails and phone calls with IP...

I'm of the belief that NN never had the deposition and Dina's pressuring the court to penalize him for that.

Thanks for the additional info and citation.

[Admin]

Welcome to new members Sharyne and Gilgamesh!  

And my sincere apologies for the delay in getting them approved. There was a problem with the admin notification system for new registrations, and thankfully I "finally" found it and fixed it. Hopefully it won't happen again! (I'm definitely not the most brilliant forum master! I think I need an IT person, lol!))

[Admin]

New entries on the SD ROA,#529, 528, 527, 526:  These appear to be in advance of the ex parte on 2-8-17.

529 02/03/2017 Proposed Order (RE Motion for Sanctions) submitted by Shacknai, Dina received but not filed on 02/03/2017. Shacknai, Dina (Defendant) RE Motion for Sanctions
 Remove  
528 02/03/2017 Motion for Sanctions (Against Neil Nalepa for his Failure to Attend the Court Ordered Deposition) filed by Shacknai, Dina. Shacknai, Dina (Defendant) Against Neil Nalepa for his Failure to Attend the Court Ordered Deposition
 Remove  
527 02/01/2017 Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage (Denied) filed by Estate of Rebecca Zahau; Estate of Robert Zahau; Zahau-Loehner, Mary; Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Dina; Romano, Nina. Estate of Rebecca Zahau (Plaintiff); Estate of Robert Zahau (Plaintiff); Zahau-Loehner, Mary (Plaintiff); Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant) Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage
 Remove  
526 02/01/2017 Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by E. Michael Maddox, Author) filed by Estate of Rebecca Zahau; Estate of Robert Zahau; Zahau-Loehner, Mary; Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam; Shacknai, Dina; Romano, Nina. Estate of Rebecca Zahau (Plaintiff); Estate of Robert Zahau (Plaintiff); Zahau-Loehner, Mary (Plaintiff); Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant) Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast

Will post a summary of the above shortly, and have the docs posted. #528 is 60 pages in length.

[Admin]

#526 and 527 are a request by an author named E. Michael Maddox to be present at the ex-parte 2-8-17 (and other hearings and the trial as it moves forward), to take still photos, video, and audio. The request was denied by Judge Bacall without any commentary except the standard media attachment:

This is what E. Michael Maddox requested in #526:

1. PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE COVERED (e.g., particular witnesses at trial, the sentencing hearing, etc.):
Ex Parte Hearing, Motion Hearing, Discovery Hearing, Summary Judgment/Summar Adjudication, Trial
Readiness Conference, Trial
2. DATE OF PROPOSED COVERAGE (specify): 02/08/17 - 07/3 1 /17

So if I understand this correctly, the judge has denied coverage at the trial for this applicant? Does that mean no media will be approved, if this applicant was denied?

This is wording from the standard media attachment:

FACTORS CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE IN MAKING THIS ORDER (Rule 1.150)
1. Importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in
the judicial system
2. Importance of promoting public access to the judicial system
3. Parties' support of or opposition to the request
4. Nature of the case
5. Privacy rights of all participants in the proceeding,
including witnesses, jurors, and victims
6. Effect on any minor who is a party, prospective witness,
victim, or other participant in the proceeding
7. Effect on the parties' ability to select a fair and unbiased
jury
8. Effect on any ongoing law enforcement activity in the case
9. Effect on any unresolved identification issues
10. Effect on any subsequent proceedings in the case
11. Effect of coverage on the willingness of witnesses to
cooperate, including the risk that coverage will engender
threats to the health or safety of any witness
12. Effect on excluded witnesses who would have access to
the televised testimony of prior witnesses
13. Scope of the coverage and whether partial coverage
might unfairly influence or distract the jury
14. Difficulty of jury selection if a mistrial is declared
15. Security and dignity of the court
16. Undue administrative or financial burden to the court or
participants
17. Interference with neighboring courtrooms
18. Maintaining orderly conduct of the proceeding
19. Any other factor the judge deems relevant

PROHIBITED COVERAGE (Rule 1.150)
This order does not permit photographing, recording, or broadcasting of the following in the court:
1. The jury or the spectators 5. A conference between counsel and the judge at the
2. Jury selection bench ("sidebars")
3. A conference between an attorney and a client, witness, 6. A proceeding closed to the public
or aide 7. A proceeding held in chambers
4. A conference between attorneys

More interesting, who is E. Michael Maddox, and what is his interest in this case? There are several authors by that name in my search, as well as a few others who don't appear to be authors. The address listed on the court forms is a very swanky looking apartment building in San Diego, with rents in the $2200+/ month range for 1 bedroom/ 600 sq ft., and just adjacent to the bridge to Coronado Island (in the "Gaslamp Quarter"). Local author with interest? Anyone know?

[Lash]

Hi Gilgamesh and Sharyne  nice to have you!

New documents added!

[Admin]

From #528:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 10, 2017 at 11:00a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in Department C69 ofthe above-entitled Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101,Defendant DINA SHACKNAI (hereinafter "Ms. Shacknai) will and hereby does apply for an Order for Sanctions against Neil Nalepa for his
failure to comply with the court order compelling his deposition in Colorado Springs. Colorado
2 and7 or anv other order the Court deems appropriate.
Good cause exists for an award of sanctions against Mr. Nalepa pursuant to CCP 2023.030
4 (a) and (e) for his failure to comply with the October 21, 2016 court order instructing him to
5 appear for deposition, following the granting of Dina Shacknai's Motion to Compel and the
6 finding of his motion for protective order to be moot. Although a non-party resident of Colorado,
7 Mr. Nalepa had submitted himself to the jurisdiction ofthe California Court by filing the Motion
8 for Protective Order regarding his deposition.
This Motion is made and based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
10 Authorities, the attached Declaration of Marlys K. Braun, as well as upon all records filed herein,
11 and upon any other evidence and oral argument as may be presented at the time of hearing this
12 matter.

Thereafter, the Court granted Ms. Shacknai's ex parte application and advanced the
25 hearing date on her Motion to Compel the deposition of Mr. Nalepa and Mr. Nalepa's Motion to
26 Quash. That matter came for hearing on October 21, 2016 and the Court ordered Mr. Nalepa to
27 appear for his deposition in Colorado within 30 days ofthe hearing. Mr. Miller was served with a
28 copy of the court order, the original Colorado deposition subpoena served on Mr. Nalepa, as well
as a Notice of Deposition of Neil Nalepa for November 15, 2016. On November 14, 2016, Mr.
2 Miller confirmed that he had forwarded the deposition notice to Mr. Nalepa by email and text, but
3 indicated that he had not spoken to Mr. Nalepa and would not be appearing. Four counsel flew to
4 Colorado for the deposition at significant cost. However, Mr. Nalepa did not appear as ordered and
5 the parties made a record of the non-appearance.
On December 7, 2016, Ms. Shacknai appeared before this Court and requested a hearing
7 date for the Motion for Sanctions against Mr. Nalepa and Mr. Miller for their failure to comply
8 with the Court Order. The Court set a hearing date of January 6, 2017, but indicated that it had no
9 authority over Mr. Miller and any request for sanctions should be directed solely against Mr.
10 Nalepa. However, since this hearing date did not allow for proper service on Mr. Nalepa in
11 Colorado, the Court granted the ex parte application of Dina Shacknai, setting the present hearing
12 on her Motion for Sanctions March 10,2017. Mr, Nalepa was serviced with Notice of Ruling,
13 advising him of the March 10, 2017 date.

2. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE RELIEF REOUESTED
A non-party deponent who violates a subpoena has misused the discovery process. Sears
Robuck & Comnanv v. National Union Fire Insurance Comnanv of Pittsburah (2005) 131
18 Cal.App,4th 1342,1350;2023.010 (d) and (e). A witness who is not a party to the action but has
19 been subpoenaed to appear for deposition, is subject to sanctions for failure to appear or refusal to
20 be sworn, including contempt proceedings for disobedience to the subpoena and payment of $500
21 to the aggrieved party, plus all damages resulting from the failure to appear. (CCP tlIi 2020.240,
22 1992.)
7 date for the Motion for Sanctions against Mr. Nalepa and Mr. Miller for their failure to comply
8 with the Court Order. The Court set a hearing date of January 6, 2017, but indicated that it had no
9 authority over Mr. Miller and any request for sanctions should be directed solely against Mr.
10 Nalepa. However, since this hearing date did not allow for proper service on Mr. Nalepa in
11 Colorado, the Court granted the ex parte application of Dina Shacknai, setting the present hearing
12 onher Motion for Sanctions March 10,2017. Mr, Nalepa was serviced with Notice of Ruling,
13 advising him of the March 10, 2017 date.

DEFENDANT DINA SHACKNAI IS ENTITLED TO SANCTIONS IN THE
12
13
AMOUNT OF $4.020.61
It is appropriate for the court to order sanctions against Mr. Nalepa, as Dina Shacknai was
forced to incur considerable expenses as a result of Mr. Nalepa's willful failure to attend his court
ordered deposition. She is entitled to seek sanctions equal to the attorney's fees and other costs
associated with the preparation for and attendance at the deposition, including court reporter fees,
pursuant to CCP tj1987.2 and 2023.030. Thus, Ms. Shacknai is requesting that the court order
18 sanctions against Mr. Nalepa in the amount of $ 4,020.61, which is comprised of $ 541.92in court
19 reporter costs, $2,380 in attorneys fees for preparation for the deposition and travel to Colorado,
20 $369.60 in airfaire, $145.78 for hotel expenses, $ 39.31 in taxis, 44.00 in parking and $500 as the
21 minimum forfeiture damages provided for in CCP )2020.240 and tj1992

Mr. Nalepa has no substantial justification for defying the order of this court and there are
24 not circumstances that would make this award unjust. It should be noted that additional costs were
25 expended by Nina Romano and Adam Shacknai, as their attorneys also traveled to Colorado for
26 the deposition.

Ok, I have a question for anyone that may know. Why did attorneys get on a plane to Colorado Springs without a confirmation that NN had received the messages and would appear?? It sounds like no one ever heard from NN, not even his attorney, although presumably he was served with notices. I guess I wouldn't get on a plane if I wasn't at least a little bit sure the person was going to show up.

Quite honestly, $4000 isn't a very big fine. As I said before, it may be considerably less $$ than paying an attorney for months to fight this, and that could be why NN didn't show up. It wouldn't take long to rack up $4000 in attorney fees. Either way, since he's a non-party to a civil action, he won't face any kind of arrest warrant or anything. I don't blame him for not wanting to be dragged into this.

Interesting that NR and AS did not request sanctions, though their attorneys also flew to CO. (I wondered how 4 people flew to CO on $369 of airfare claimed, and how all 4 of them stayed in a $145 hotel room!)

The whole NN angle seems like such a boondoogle to me-- not going to produce anything that will prove DS isn't responsible for RZ's death. I can't imagine why DS and her attorneys are wasting so much time on this, unless it's just a reason to wander into the weeds to run the clock. Mixed with some of DS's standard vindictiveness, of course.

[Imp]

What remains very interesting to me is the lengths Dina is going to (e.g., trying to depose NN) to dig up dirt on RZ, both for reasons of vindictiveness/jealousy/garden-variety insanity, and to bolster the suicide ruling. Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier, if she's innocent, for her to simply produce an alibi for the night in question? Why harass poor NN and have him fined? What did he ever do to her? The woman is vile. She should've been at Rady that night, but apparently she wasn't or for some oddball reason can't prove it. So where was she? Let's see a minute-by-minute accounting of Dina's whereabouts the night RZ was murdered. Enough with attempting to ruin the lives of people on the periphery of this thing.

[Admin]

Jonah is keeping busy......

SAN DIEGO, Jan. 17, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Obalon Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:OBLN), a vertically integrated medical technology company, announced today that Jonah Shacknai, Executive Chairman of DermaForce and former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Medicis has been elected to its board of directors.  Mr. Shacknai joins Raymond Dittamore and Les Howe as the latest members of Obalon Therapeutic’s board of directors.

Mr. Shacknai is currently the Executive Chairman of DermaForce Partners, which operates prestige skincare company Dermarché Labs and the new doctor dispensed skincare brand, SkinBetter Science.   Previously, Mr. Shacknai was the founder of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, and served as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for 25 years, until the acquisition of the Company in 2012 for $2.6 billion. Medicis was one of the leading medical dermatology and aesthetics companies in the world. Mr. Shacknai was involved directly in the development, regulatory approval, and marketing of over 40 products.

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/01/17/906260/0/en/Jonah-Shacknai-Joins-Obalon-Therapeutics-Inc-Board-of-Directors.html

[Sharyne]

Thank you for the welcome KZ and Lash.

I had planned to log in earlier, but some things came up and now I just had time to read a few of the posts. I have some questions, and hope I can remember them, but have to leave for a while now.

Sooooooo nice to read posts without the hate here.
Be Back Later

[Admin]

Seven new entries on the ROA following yesterday's ex-parte.

543 02/08/2017 Minutes finalized for Ex Parte heard 02/08/2017 08:45:00 AM. Minute Order
542 02/08/2017 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 6/9/2017 at 1:30pm vacated.
541 02/08/2017 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 5/19/2017 at 1:30pm vacated.
540 02/08/2017 Status Conference (Civil) scheduled for 04/17/2017 at 11:00PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.
539 02/08/2017 Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) set for 6/02/2017 at 10:30AM vacated.
538 02/08/2017 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 5/19/2017 at 1:30PM vacated.
537 02/08/2017 Motion Hearing (Civil) scheduled for 04/17/2017 at 11:00AM before Judge Katherine Bacal.
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

And here's a bombshell! Nina is going to be removed from the complaint! Did she agree to settle? There is no one named "Nina Shacknai", so a major error here, repeated twice.

Text of the Minute Order from yesterday:

EVENT TYPE: Ex Parte

APPEARANCES
Curtis K Greer, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
John D Marino, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Kathleen McCormick, specially appearing for counsel Mark Vranjes, present for Defendant(s).
Krista M. Enns, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Bradley Matthews, specially appearing for counsel KIM SCHUMANN, present for Defendant(s).

Now being the time previously set for hearing Defendant Adam Shacknai's Ex Parte Re Informal
Discovery as to Upcoming Motion to Compel Hearing, counsel appear as noted above and the hearing
commences.

Attorney Greer informs the Court that he will be giving supplemental responses by Monday.

Attorney Enns states that plaintiff still has not produced responses to two other requests that he has
promised to produce. Attorney Greer states that they are going to be given as well.

The Court inquires if Attorney Enns is ready to file her motion for the 3/10/2017 hearing and she states
that she has it with her.

Attorney Greer states that he wants a Motion to Amend the Complaint and Nina Shacknai will not be a
defendant on the amended complaint.

The Court notes that would do away with the necessity of Nina Shacknai's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is scheduled for 04/17/2017 at 11:00AM
before Judge Katherine Bacal.

Nina Shacknai's Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 5/19/2017 at 1:30PM is
vacated.

Counsel also inform the Court that they agreed to set a trial date, understanding that there may be a
conflict with Attorney Marino's family get together, and now they know that it does conflict with his
schedule.

The Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) set for 6/02/2017 at 10:30AM is vacated.

The Trial date is not currently scheduled, so does not need to be vacated.

The court schedules a status conference to trail the Motion to Amend in order to address the setting of
trial dates.

The Status Conference (Civil) is scheduled for 04/17/2017 at 11:00PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

Other defendant's motions for summary judgment are vacated without prejudice to rescheduling after the
hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint .

Dina Shacknai's Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 5/19/2017 at 1:30pm is
vacated.

Adam Shacknai's Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 6/9/2017 at 1:30pm is
vacated.

And holy cow what an error!! Is this referring to Nina ROMANO, or DINA Shacknai? Astonished that such an error could be made in reference to a defendant. Seems they seldom proof read. My guess is that this refers to Nina. We will soon see.

And to point out another error, previously it was Brad Matthews who had the family reunion conflict. Now it's John Marino?? So many errors. Makes one have less confidence in the system.

[Lash]

Attorney Greer actively tweeting:

Keith Greer‏ @GreerLawyer 31m

Rebecca Zahau crime scene evidence unsealed.  Does it point to murder or suicide.
Tonight on @10News at 11 #Rebeccazahau #justice4rebecca

https://twitter.com/greerlawyer

[Sharyne]

Sadly, it seems it's a sign of the times re: typos and poor grammar.  Each decade it continues to get worse.

Is there any way to notify someone of the mistakes?  If we continue to access the site, do you think we will see a correction?

I still wonder why it's so important to depose NN.  IMO, Jonah should be deposed, as he was living there when the tragedies occurred.  And his children as well, since Dina saw fit to depose Rebecca's daughter.  I find it difficult to believe Jonah has more power due to his wealth, than all the billionaires that live in Coronado as well as LaJolla and Del Mar.

[Lash]

Interesting opening by reporter Itica Milanes. Zahau family had an opportunity to settle this case for millions of dollars. They said NO, for them this is about justice 4 Rebecca!

[Lash]

Keith Greer - @GreerLawyer

@Jackie_0826 Trial was initially moved to June 2017 and is now being continued to 1/1/18. Very complex case with a lot of work still needed.

2/9/17, 9:14pm

https://twitter.com/greerlawyer

[Imp]

OMG ... January 2018. Unbelievable.

[Imp]

K_Z was kind enough to post some snippets of document 555 at WS. I'm a little lost. Adam's attorneys are complaining a lot about Greer, but I don't know what Greer is or isn't obligated to provide to the defense.

ETA: I'm thinking Greer has a strategy here ... I'm just not sure what it is.

[Lash]

Adam's attorneys are complaining about Greer's Twitter account, too.

[Imp]

Lash: I saw that as well. I'm assuming his tweets are part of his strategy.

[~Bourne]

I dont know how true this is but a poster at LHK claims judge dismissed with prejudice case against Nina Romano... docket 573 dated today. I have screen cap but don't know how to post it here.

[Lash]

Thank you Bourne!

Unfortunately, ROA doc 573 is not available for purchase yet. I hope it's soon, should be an interesting read.
A Tentative Ruling was published yesterday. Nothing significant in this ruling. Just a notice of continuation.

The hearing on defendants' discovery motions is continued to Thursday March 16 at 9:00 a.m.

37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

ROA 575 Tentative Ruling-

http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/v3tr/ViewRulings.aspx?CaseNo=37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL&SelDates=03/10/2017&EventId=1766119

*Tentative Rulings are free to view here*

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1554961&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

[Sharyne]

Sad, sad day.

[Sponsored content]