Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I -w· —· Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 361 Filed O3/31/2004 Page 1 of 1
l ga <\
(IJ
I I
- § UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT L
I é olsraicr OF connecticut I Im Im I
l ¤
fu 1
I § I Zlliill lllrll 23 F? 2= 32 I
H
A
TQ CQUFIIII I
Q, i‘·Ul”~2I.ll L3 I. I
g' I INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. I
l E y Plaintiff CIVIL AGETION NO. ‘ I
g 4; I, g 3:00CV8I 5 (CFD) ·
2 I-— v. I I
EI r2sr:m:LlI FY`) `I lrll In I
JJ mu;-ITD fL`i.Z'L · `
.§ Mall/IOSEITAFAI-ll REYAD AND WAFA REYAD I
U, ,I _=.. _;J 5 Defendants I I
Q _ M 2: ri DATE: MARCH 28, 2004 I
'.| I
0
.¤
1 Q DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO POSTPONE TRIAL
§ 5 I
·—• .
· S Defendant Mostafa Reyad hereby respectfully moves this Court to Postpone the
kl c
o ¤¤ . _
gg, I Trial scheduled on April 6, 2004 pending Defendants’ Appeal dated October 1, *
Q 2003 (Doc # 300). The Appeal does divest the Court of Jurisdiction, only from I
0‘\ 0 I
3 proceeding to Trial. Plaintiff, contrary to the ordinary practice, wrote a letter to the I
¤¥ ‘g
E -2. Court including memorandum of law, which should be filed with Ithe Court and I
N `H I
¤=Z E docketed. Plaintiff as an officer of the Court, wrote a wrongful legal ‘
m I4 ,
m lil r .
`{ 8 a memorandum. Plaintiffs attorney cites cases are completely misplaced and none
· JJ
E - of it can be analogous to the case at Bar. Plaintiff’s letter dated March 23, 2004
' U1 1
§ é §,shows lack of knowledge about appealable orders and non-appealable orders.
ill .¤ ¤
·¤ 4: In
lz:
3 a rl., 1:
A ‘ .
g EOn the hearing held on March 23, 2004, Plaintiff delivered the said letter to
Q" S il I
E "Q B; 2Defendant at the time the parties were waiting the Court. Defendant started to I
§ ·~ t ii
Q. ,11 JJ .
Dr m I
·. € O g
A TE Er.; i l
l