Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

, . Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 335 Filed O3/02/2004 Page 1 0f4
O O
q UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
———;———-——~—»e-—-—_ iii;
» TITIU 5, ·tt
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., : CIVIL ACTIONQNQ. $5;, mj;
Plaintiff, : 3:00CV835(CFl§))`g,—;i i T
- -·;;“C;t l"~)
- S. . _, gsm
V. Z $3.3 'U
f dt.-3 we
MOSTAFA REYAD and WAFA REYAD, : MARCH 2, 2004 '”`' Wig Q
. ____,,.\ . »—
Defendants. :
PLAINTlFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING
OR EXPEDITED HEARING TO NIITIGATEEXCESSIVE DAMAGES
Plaintiff IndyMac Bank, F.S.l3. ("Plaintiff" or "IndyMac") submits the instant
I
memorandum in opposition to "Defendants’ Motion For Expedited Ruling or Expedited ”
Hearing to Mitigate Excessive Damages Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1657(a)", dated ·
February 9, 2004 (doc. # 329). To the extent that Defendants request in their Motion j
I
that the Court expedite its consideration of Defendants' previously filed motions pending

before the Count, Plaintiff has no objection to such request.
Defendants also request, however, an expedited hearing to release $39,162.00
of the prejudgment remedy previously ordered in this action, on the grounds that
I
Defendants require funds to reinstate two life insurance policies maintained by
Defendants’ chiIdren—who are not even parties to this action. Plaintiff strongly objects
to Defendants’ Motion in this regard. Defendants offer absolutely no authority for their
I
I

` ` Case 3:00-cv-OO83€=$FD Document 335 Filed O3/8252004 Page 2 of 4
request that funds garnished pursuant to the prejudgment remedy "be released".1
Moreover, the policies that Defendants seek to reinstate have not been garnished or
otherwise affected by the prejudgment remedy ordered in this case. Finally, the subject
policies appear to be held by Defendants’ children—not by Defendants themselves.
There is absolutely no reason why any assets currently subject to the prejudgment
remedy ordered by this Court should be made available to Defendants so that they can
pay obligations of their children.
Finally, Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ request that the Court hold a hearing to
entertain this request. Defendants have offered no evidence suggesting that the
Defendants, or even the policyholders themselves, lack the funds to reinstate these
policies, much less any reason why this Court should release any assets lawfully
preserved to satisfy any judgment obtained by indyMac in this action.2
For these reasons, "Defendants’ Motion For Expedited Ruling or Expedited
Hearing to Mitigate Excessive Damages Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1657(a)”, dated
February 9, 2004 (doc. # 329) should be denied to the extent that it requests that the
Court "release" any funds subject to the prejudgment remedy ordered in this case, or
that the Court hold a hearing entertaining such request. e
l

1 To the extent that Defendants challenge the issuance of the prejudgment
remedy, such challenge has been rejected by this Court no less than twice previously in
this action.
2 ln this regard, IndyMac notes that the assets attached pursuant to the
prejudgment remedy ordered by this Court are insufficient to cover lrrdyMac’s estimated j
damages in this action, including attorneys’ fees, to date.
l
aosmrooc 2
l

I ` Case 3:00-cv-OO83ۤFD Document 335 Filed O3/PQAZOO4 Page 3 of 4
.__ _j
PLA|NT |\/IAC BANK, F.S.B.
By 5, , A (J
!· - - • " Schaef r (ctO 34)
- Rowena A. Moffett (ct19811)
BRENNER, SALTZIVIAN & WALLIVIAN LLP
Its Attorneys
271 Whitney Avenue
P.O. Box 1746
New Haven, CT 06507-1746
Tel. (203) 772-2600
Email: rmoHett@bsw|aw.com
f
i
aosmmoc 3 l

i _ ’ Case 3;00-q;v-00835§FD Document 335 Filed O3/{9252004 Page 4 of 4 {
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is tc certify that a true and accurate ccpy cf the fcregcing was served by
United States first—c|ass mail, this 2"d day cf March, 2004 upcn:
Mcstafa Reyad
2077 Center Ave
#22D
Fcrt Lee, NJ 07024
Wafa Reyad
2077 Center Ave
#22D
Fcrt Lee, NJ 07024. Q fg
l i R. chae r (ct04 4) I
i
I
susmmec 4 [