Laci's parents drop wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson

[berlis]

Thursday, Apr. 30, 2009
Laci's parents drop wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson

The parents of Laci Peterson quietly dropped a wrongful death lawsuit against death row inmate Scott Peterson last week, a court official said, leaving a Stanislaus County Superior Court judge with no reason to call the case that had been scheduled for a hearing this morning.

A trial was slated to begin next month, but Modesto’s most notorious offender would not have been transported from San Quentin State Prison. And even if Scott Peterson’s former in-laws had won a multi-million-dollar judgment, it would have been largely symbolic.

The litigation did not shed much more light on a sensational capital case that ended in guilty verdicts in fall 2004 and sent Scott Peterson, formerly a fertilizer salesman, to death row in spring 2005.

In a videotaped deposition taken in jail, Scott Peterson insisted that he did not kill his wife and unborn son. He also asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, declining to answer questions 195 times, according to a transcript that is part of the public record.

It was unclear if a settlement had been reached, though a court official said attorneys for Sharon Rocha and her ex-husband Dennis Rocha filed papers to dismiss the case.

Attorneys involved in the case were not immediately available for comment.

Scott Peterson’s conviction is on appeal in the California Supreme Court.

http://www.modbee.com/featured/story/685591.html

[berlis]

I'm just wondering what are some thoughts on why this suit was dropped?
I do not think any type of a settlement could have been reached.
Nor do I see it being from the judge ruling that his sentence would not be a consideration in this case.
Also I find it very odd that none of the news shows ran with this info.

[marlene]

Sharon Rocha filed the motion to dismiss with prejudice, which means she can bring the action again at any time in the future.

I suspect she will bring the lawsuit again if she gets wind of any "money-making" deals on Scott's part. I wonder if there is a statue of limitations clock running on this case.

Berlis, I think she had it dismissed because of the heavy costs involved. They thought they were going to get an easy ride of it because of the conviction, and only have to prove damages, but now they also have to prove responsibility. It costs money to have depose people and have them testify, and no State to pick up the tab for them. That's a lot for a lawfirm to put out without any real hope of ever getting anything back.

[JackIsBack]

Sharon Rocha filed the motion to dismiss with prejudice, which means she can bring the action again at any time in the future.

I think that is backwards.... "with prejudice" means you can not bring the same action again. From wikipedia - "in a civil case, dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_(law)

and from http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term ... 9/alpha/W/

"A final and binding decision by a judge about a legal matter that prevents further pursuit of the same matter in any court. When a judge makes such a decision, he dismisses the matter "with prejudice."

[marlene]

you are right, Jack, I mistyped it . . . it was filed without prejudice. I got it right on the blog.

but I wonder if it still is governed by a statute of limitations. Otherwise, these suits could hang over someone's head forever.

[marlene]

you are right, Jack, I mistyped it . . . it was filed without prejudice. I got it right on the blog.

but I wonder if it still is governed by a statute of limitations. Otherwise, these suits could hang over someone's head forever.

to answer my question:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE (This means, generally, that you can sue again on the same cause of action,
provided the statue of limitations has not expired.) http://slocourts.net/downloads/forms/civil/sc001.pdf

What is the statute of limitation?

For California: In most cases, a wrongful death action must be filed within two years of the date of death. In cases where the wrongful death action is based upon exposure to asbestos, however, the action must be filed within one year from the date of death or within one year from the date the plaintiff first knew, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that exposure to asbestos caused or contributed to the death, whichever date is later.
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/statute-limitations/california.html?ref=http%3A//search.yahoo.com/search%3Fp%3DCA+statue+of+limitations+wrongful+death+suit%26fr%3Dmcafee%26xargs%3D0%26pstart%3D1%26b%3D41%26xa%3DANq423blZ00NfAH9g_77mg--%2C1242934792

It's already been 2 years since Laci and Conner died, so I'm confused. Maybe it sets a new 2-year period, so Sharon would have another 2 years to refile the claim.

[JackIsBack]

you are right, Jack, I mistyped it . . . it was filed without prejudice.

I figured it was just a mistype... I knew you knew.