Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 366

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 1 of 2

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 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE PREJUDGMENT REMEDY

This is the Memorandum of Law in support for Defendants Motion to Dissolve the prejudgment remedy issued by this Court on May 16, 2000; pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. R. 4(n). At first impression, the subdivision may not be clear, however, see, Notes of Advisory Committee on 1980 Amendments to The Rules; Subdivision (n), it stipulates in part.

Given the liberal availability of long-arm jurisdiction, the exercise of power quasi-in-rem has become almost an anachronism. Circumstances too spare to affiliate the defendant to the forum state sufficiently to support long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant s person are also inadequate to support seizure of the defendant s assets fortuitously found within the state. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977).

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 366

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 2 of 2

Defendants does not have any asserts in this District, all the insurance and annuity contracts, originated; maintained; under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and Plaintiff obtained the garnishment in this District by stating that the Insurance Companies do business in this State makes it as the Advisory stipulation Defendant s asserts fortuitously found within the state , see, also Shaffer v. Heitner 433 U.S. 186 (1977), Federal Rules supersedes any law. Defendants have the right to say We expect the Order Dissolving the prejudgment remedy as soon as practicable .

2