Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

e ....;.._...;__,__. _. .,,
I. ·_ Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 356 Filed O3/31/2@&¢O() |?g§g1p?I\J_md\c7W`
I
I
I I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
9* DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
.:1- Itjczé Ur I
: . -2; L 1. lf 4Q` ciii $:,1
I {gs ~I-» INDXMACWBANK, F.S.B. _ em
iicgé · Plaintiff CIVIL ACTlG§l`.N_0. wm I
I ;. _ 3:00CV835 f, I_Q§‘““°
_ ‘“‘·* _;Q.§ g; IIEYII
I V- i;;.1~¤~ wv I
I ei?. as I
I rtf? ow
__, MOSTAFA REYAD AND WAFA REYAD E, si
_ i Defendants ‘
ud DATE: JANUARY 14, 2004
§ ~=i§` I
I WE ` I I
I o DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TQ RULE 12 (b) (6)
I f I
$ Lz; E__ Defendants hereby respectfully move this Court to Dismiss PIaintiffs' Entire
si t? U .
-: 'éxg Complain, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 (b) (6). Plaintiffs cause of action is
zz ‘ ° A
E . gg barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The parties filed the Joint Trial
Memorandum on November 18, 2003. The Court Ordered, as of January 9, 2004
this case is ready for Trial. Rule 12 (b) (6) is a defense of failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and Rule 12 (h) (2) stipulates "A defense of
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ..... may be made ....
. by motion forjudgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits. I
Defendants filed on December 3, 2003 motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12
‘ (b) (6) founded on Plaintiff lacks capacity to sue, and did not include the issue of
I
res judicata which is applicable by the same Rule. It is on or about January 5,
2004; The District of Connecticut published, Kevin Hackett v. Eileen Storey, etal, I
1