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

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 324

Filed 01/13/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

: : Plaintiff, : : v. : : MOSTAFA REYAD and WAFA REYAD, : : Defendants. : : INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00CV835(CFD)

JANUARY 12, 2004

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. submits this consolidated memorandum in opposition to Defendant Mostafa Reyad's Motion to Grant Motion to Dismiss and Second Motion in Limine dated December 18, 2003 (Doc. # 318) and Defendant Wafa Reyad's Motion to Grant Motion to Dismiss dated December 18, 2003 (Doc. # 320).1 In their latest motions, Defendants request that the Court grant Defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss (Doc. ## 311 and 313) and Second Motion in Limine (Doc. # 308) on the grounds that Plaintiff's Consolidated Opposition to Defendants' Pre-Trial Motions dated December 15, 2003 (Doc. # 316) fails to respond sufficiently to Defendants' motions. Plaintiff respectfully submits that its opposition to Defendants' pre-trial motions

In a recent filing with the Court, Defendants have asserted that the instant opposition memorandum was due on January 9, 2004. Because Defendants served their motions by United States First Class Mail on December 18, 2003, the instant opposition memorandum is due by January 12, 2004. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) (directing that three days shall be added to the prescribed period in which to, inter alia, file an opposition memorandum after service by mail of the motion upon a party).
791690.DOC

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 324

Filed 01/13/2004

Page 2 of 4

sets forth sufficient grounds for the denial of those motions. Namely, in addition to being without merit, Defendants' pre-trial motions are untimely in that the parties already have filed their Joint Trial Memorandum and the Court has declared this action ready for immediate trial as of January 9, 2004. Moreover, Defendants already have raised the same grounds as set forth in their latest motions on numerous prior occasions in this action, most recently in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 209), Motion for Amended Summary Judgment (Doc. # 280) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 263), all of which this Court denied in its Rulings on Various Pending Motions dated September 22, 2003 (Doc. # 298). Additionally, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are inappropriate at this stage of the litigation in light of the numerous motions to dismiss that have preceded it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) (requiring a party to consolidate all 12(b) defenses in one motion to dismiss). In light of the facts that Defendants' pre-trial motions raise the same arguments that this Court already has determined are not subject to summary adjudication and the Court has declared this action ready for immediate trial, Plaintiff objects to Defendants' motions as duplicative and untimely, and respectfully request that they be denied on these grounds. To the extent that the Court wishes to revisit these issues once again prior to trial, Plaintiff relies on its arguments previously set forth in Plaintiff's memoranda filed in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Amended Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. ## 222, 269, and 228) and requests

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 324

Filed 01/13/2004

Page 3 of 4

that it be permitted to file a supplemental legal memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motions should the Court determine that additional briefing is necessary.2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant Mostafa Reyad's Motion to Grant Motion to Dismiss and Second Motion in Limine (Doc. # 318), Defendant Wafa Reyad's Motion to Grant Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 320), as well as Defendants' underlying pre-trial motions (Doc. ## 308, 311, and 313).

PLAINTIFF INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.

By:

/s/ Rowena A. Moffett David R. Schaefer (ct04334) Rowena A. Moffett (ct19811) BRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN LLP Its Attorneys 271 Whitney Avenue P.O. Box 1746 New Haven, CT 06507-1746 Tel. (203) 772-2600

To the extent that Defendants object to Plaintiff's request that it be permitted to file a legal supplemental memorandum in the event that the Court wishes to revisit these issues and requires additional briefing, Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendants' repeated and continuous filing of numerous duplicative motions heretofore, repeatedly raising essentially identical arguments, warrants Plaintiff's request in this regard. 3

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 324

Filed 01/13/2004

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served by United States first-class mail, this 12th day of January, 2004 upon:

Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave #22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Wafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave #22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024.

/s/ Rowena A. Moffett Rowena A. Moffett (ct19811)

4