Free Motion to Transfer to Another District - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 367

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00CV835 (CFD)

V.

MOSTAFA REYAD AND WAFA REYAD Defendants DATE: APRIL 14, 2004

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO CHANGE OF VENUE

Defendant Mostafa Reyad and his wife Wafa Reyad respectfully moves this Court to change of Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404 (a); to transfer this action to the District of New Jersey at Newark. Defendants request is for interest of justice ; or in the alternative dismiss the action. In either decision; transfer or dismissal, Plaintiff cannot claim prejudice. In the same token, transferring the case to another judge will prejudice Defendants for reasons stated in Defendants motion for a new Trial and its memorandum, because Court s Ruling without hearing on essential Defendants motion will frustrate the other District Court, in case of transfer. The facts and records of this action shows that, Plaintiff engaged in vexatious litigation and filed identical actions simultaneously (one day apart) in two (2) District Courts for the exact cause of action supported by the same perjured declaration under penalty of perjury which is a Federal Crime.

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 367

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 2 of 3

Mostafa Reyad upon evidence provided to the Court at Trial on April 7, 2004, showing that Plaintiff on his own, multiplied the percentage of 78% to the appraised values of appraisals reports came to be a difference of 22.27%; it means that if Plaintiff on his own multiplied the percentage of 68%, the value will have a difference 32.31% and so on, evidencing Plaintiff s perjury. In any event, all loans sold and none has any appraisal issue at all. Defendant s motion for perjury pending before the Court. Thus the transfer definitely will cause frustration to any other Court.

Defendants suggest that, transferring the action with pending motion, as well as before rehearing of numerous motions will be unfair to Defendants, accordingly, dismissal is warranted for fair justice .

This Court established personal jurisdiction on both Defendants, however, the Court cannot extend its jurisdiction to their properties; as it explained in the accompanied memorandum of law.

CONCLUSION The Honorable Court in its own wise discretion, either to dismiss the Entire Action, or in the alternative Order rehearing on certain motions, and Rule upon Defendant s motion (Doc # 240), thereafter transfer the action to the District of New Jersey at Newark.

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 367

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 3 of 3

The Defendant Mostafa Reyad

The Defendant Wafa Reyad

By: Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Day Phone 203-325-4100

By: Wafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Home Phone 201-585-0562

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that he mailed on the captioned date a true and correct copy to Attorney David Schaefer at 271 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511

Mostafa Reyad

3