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

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 491

Filed 03/29/2007

Page 1 of 3

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)

March 29, 2007

PLAINTIFF' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS S PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III

Plaintiff IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. submits the instant Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Article III filed by Defendant Mostafa Reyad on March 8, 2007 (Doc. #489). In his latest Motion, Mr. Reyad acknowledges that he merely reiterates his prior pleadings contesting Plaintiff'damages in this matter, and raises s this argument again relying on Article III of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendants have raised this argument, Plaintiff has filed opposing memoranda, and this Court has ruled on this argument numerous times previously. See e.g., Plaintiff'Post-Trial Memorandum dated December 21, 2004 (doc. s # 441); Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 16, 2005 (doc. # 458), at 45; Court'Memorandum of Decision dated July 26, 2006 (doc. # s 466); Defendant'Motion for Reconsideration dated August 2, 2006 (doc. # 470); s Plaintiff'Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration dated August 23, 2006 (doc. # 472); s Defendant'Brief dated November 7, 2006 (doc. # 480); Court'Endorsement Order s s dated March 5, 2007 denying Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Reconsideration, and

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 491

Filed 03/29/2007

Page 2 of 3

Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff incorporates by reference its prior arguments in this regard, and requests that the Court deny Defendant Mostafa Reyad' s latest Motion to Dismiss summarily.1 Finally, Plaintiff notes that Mr. Reyad has now filed four post-trial motions seeking to reverse the Court'Decision, in each of which he raises arguments that have s been presented to and rejected by this Court on numerous occasions. Defendants' dilatory motion practice has unreasonably extended the pendency of this matter and has unduly increased the already excessive cost of this litigation. Defendants' continued attempts to delay entry of final judgment should not be countenanced. Plaintiff urges the Court to direct that Defendants file no further motions raising the same argument before this Court as such is an abusive process and an unnecessary waste of the Court'resources, and that Plaintiff need not incur the additional expense s of responding to future motions without first being directed to do so by the Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that Defendant Mostafa Reyad'Motion to s Dismiss Pursuant to Article III (doc. # 489) be denied. 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 Fax. (203) 772-4008 Email: [email protected]

1

Article III of the Constitution does not provide grounds for the relief requested by Defendant, once again, in his latest Motion to Dismiss.
9U6527.DOC

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 491

Filed 03/29/2007

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served by United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, this 29th day of March, 2007 upon:

Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave #22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 [email protected] Wafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave #22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 [email protected]

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

9U6527.DOC

3