Wrongful death against murderer

What is the name of your state? California

My dad was murdered and the "Scum" who "allegedly" did it is currently in jail, plead 'not guilty' in the arraignment and being held without bail.

I'd like to file a wrongful death suit against the scum but how do I determine if he has any assets? Will the lawyer I hire check that out and tell me if we even have anything to go after?

Personal injury lawyers handle this type of cases right? Please send me a PM if you know of a good lawyer in So.California that has an experience in a wrongful death suit against a murderer.

thanks in advance.

dontknow said:

What is the name of your state? California

My dad was murdered and the "Scum" who "allegedly" did it is currently in jail, plead 'not guilty' in the arraignment and being held without bail.

I'd like to file a wrongful death suit against the scum but how do I determine if he has any assets? Will the lawyer I hire check that out and tell me if we even have anything to go after?

Personal injury lawyers handle this type of cases right? Please send me a PM if you know of a good lawyer in So.California that has an experience in a wrongful death suit against a murderer.

thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Sorry for your loss.....You need to go through the criminal trial first. Yes, your attorney will be able to establish all the information, but you are putting the cart before the horse at this point.

statute of limitations?

"You need to go through the criminal trial first"

I have no problem waiting for the criminal trial first, but what is my statute of limitations? Is it a year after the crime/shooting? What if the criminal trial lasts over a year?

There is no law that states you have to go through the criminal trial first, however It is necessary to prove that the death was caused by the wrongful act of another person or company. This in itself can be a daunting task, requiring the assertion of complicated legal theories.

It is also necessary to prove the life expectancy of the deceased in order to determine what the future losses would be.

The quality of the relationship between the deceased and the person pursuing the claim must also be presented.

The true loss in a wrongful death claim is non-economic, or emotional loss. Development of the proof in this area is a complicated blend of law, art, and common sense. Letting the criminal trial play out is best at this point.

I believe the statute is one year, but can be tolled.

--PARIDISE-- said:

I believe the statute is one year, but can be tolled.

Click to expand...

My response:

Before you incorrectly "believe" something, why don't you check the law (California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1) to find out?

That way, you won't mislead our writers.

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Before you incorrectly "believe" something, why don't you check the law (California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1) to find out?

That way, you won't mislead our writers.

IAAL

Click to expand...

Then lead the writer in the right direction instead of finding fault with my response. Under California's statute of limitations, a plaintiff must bring a cause of action for wrongful death within one year of accruel.

Cal Code Civ Proc340.

Actually under these circumstances, I believe it is 6 months.

--PARIDISE-- said:

Then lead the writer in the right direction instead of finding fault with my response. Under California's statute of limitations, a plaintiff must bring a cause of action for wrongful death within one year of accruel.

Cal Code Civ Proc340.

Actually under these circumstances, I believe it is 6 months.

Click to expand...

My response:

You know, it's really not too difficult to "find fault with [your] response" when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

First, you said the the Limitation Period is 3 years, and then you edited that initial response to 1 year (you didn't think I saw that, did you?). Then, without ANY research on your own, as I suggested, you came back to be defensive, and actually made another incorrect "correction" stating the Limitation Period is 1 year. And, now, you've made yet another incorrect correction by stating that California Code of Civil Procedure §340 is the controlling statute. Then, without any explanation, you change your "belief", once again, and have now, still incorrectly, stated that the Limitations period is 6 months! Amazing! Which is it? You're all over the damn place! You're no help whatsoever!

Instead of your "beliefs", why don't you do some research, and look at the actual Statute that I referenced, and then look at YOUR referenced Statute to discover where you went wrong?

Stop misleading our writers. Do your homework before you write.

IAAL

My further comment:

Well, Paraquat?

Did you do the research? Did you find the correct answers? Why haven't you made the corrections to your responses?

Surely, you don't want to leave your response the way it is, do you?

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My further comment:

Well, Paraquat?

Did you do the research? Did you find the correct answers? Why haven't you made the corrections to your responses?

Surely, you don't want to leave your response the way it is, do you?

IAAL

Click to expand...

I am leaving my response the way it is and will not further entertain you, as apparently I do for some reason.

If you have better advice for this poster who has not even replied, then feel free, I am looking forward to your thoughts on this., not on me, but the subject at hand.


What I will not do, is argue with a internet personality.

--PARIDISE-- said:

I am leaving my response the way it is and will not further entertain you, as apparently I do for some reason.

If you have better advice for this poster who has not even replied, then feel free, I am looking forward to your thoughts on this., not on me, but the subject at hand.


What I will not do, is arguue with a internet personality.

Click to expand...

My response:

Typical, ignorant, defensive, response. "I'm not changing anything because I don't want to, and I don't care." Then why the hell did you bother at all?

So, you want to leave your ridiculous response the way it is, for everyone to see? I was trying to help you so that you could do the right thing on your own. But, apparently, your stupidity is okay with you.

That's what I thought.

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Typical, ignorant, defensive, response. "I'm not changing anything because I don't want to, and I don't care." Then why the hell did you bother at all?

So, you want to leave your ridiculous response the way it is, for everyone to see? I was trying to help you so that you could do the right thing on your own. But, apparently, your stupidity is okay with you.

That's what I thought.

IAAL

Click to expand...

AGAIN, the poster has not replied and this is a free legal advice site. The way I see it, this is not personal injury, this would be wrongful death. In 2002 the legislation in California amended section 340,sub(3), to delete the one year limitation for personal injury. I don't see the connection as this is not personal injury.


At that time it added section 335.1 that now provides a two year statute, again, I do not see how this applies as this is not a personal injury case.


I have answered you and now I am dropping it. Your personal attacks mean nothing to me. I have not done that to you, and trust me, that was a challenge.

--PARIDISE-- said:

AGAIN, the poster has not replied and this is a free legal advice site. The way I see it, this is not personal injury, this would be wrongful death. In 2002 the legislation in California amended section 340,sub(3), to delete the one year limitation for personal injury. I don't see the connection as this is not personal injury.


At that time it added section 335.1 that now provides a two year statute, again, I do not see how this applies as this is not a personal injury case.


I have answered you and now I am dropping it. Your personal attacks mean nothing to me. I have not done that to you, and trust me, that was a challenge.

Click to expand...

My response:

Of course you "don't see the connection" because you're not legally educated.

Why don't you read the god-damned STATUTE so you can "see the connection". If "wrongful death" isn't "personal injury", then what the hell is it? What do YOU think "wrongful death" does to a family? So, you don't "believe" it "injures" a family? Look at, and read, the damned Statute. Don't continue to be ignorant and stupid.

And, what "personal attacks" are you referring? Saying that you're ignorant? Saying that you're stupid? Those are factual statements, describing you, based upon your responses in this thread - - and other threads, but I'll stick to this thread because it's so blatant.

What I'd like to know is why you even bother responding to people because you don't know what the hell you're doing, or talking about. And it's all in writing.

IAAL

My further response:

So that the original writer isn't hopelessly led astray by your utter stupidity and ignorance, the Statute of Limitations for "Wrongful Death" isn't 3 years, it isn't 1 year, and it's not even 6 months:

California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.

Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or
injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful
act or neglect of another. (Emphasis and underlining added)

See how simple that was? You were all over the damn place - - 3 years, 1 year, 6 months! Do you even know which way is up?
That's what I have to deal with in the likes of YOU!

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My further response:

So that the original writer isn't hopeless led astray by your utter stupidity and ignorance, the Statute of Limitations for "Wrongful Death" isn't 3 years, it isn't 1 year, and it's not even 6 months:

California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.

Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or
injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful
act or neglect of another. (Emphasis and underlining added)

See how simple that was? You were all over the damn place - - 3 years, 1 year, 6 months! Do you even know which way is up?

That's what I have to deal with in the likes of YOU!

IAAL

Click to expand...

The concept is simple. Do not deal with me, simply ignore me.I usually do that with you, so let's do a real big hug and ignore each other together.


This particular law can be tolled in so many ways, we could spend all day debating this.

Just for your further information, I do not live in a trailer, although I pull one on vacation, but it is a free country and you can speculate all you want.

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

You know, it's really not too difficult to "find fault with [your] response" when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

First, you said the the Limitation Period is 3 years, and then you edited that initial response to 1 year (you didn't think I saw that, did you?). Then, without ANY research on your own, as I suggested, you came back to be defensive, and actually made another incorrect "correction" stating the Limitation Period is 1 year. And, now, you've made yet another incorrect correction by stating that California Code of Civil Procedure §340 is the controlling statute. Then, without any explanation, you change your "belief", once again, and have now, still incorrectly, stated that the Limitations period is 6 months! Amazing! Which is it? You're all over the damn place! You're no help whatsoever!

Instead of your "beliefs", why don't you do some research, and look at the actual Statute that I referenced, and then look at YOUR referenced Statute to discover where you went wrong?

Stop misleading our writers. Do your homework before you write.

IAAL

Click to expand...

One last thought on your comment....................

You mislead the writers of this forum all the time. You berate them with your personal attacks and simply use this forum as a Romper Room for yourself.

I am now out of this thread, let's be adults and ignore each other.