Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

,,,w,,,,-,,,,,, , ,..r A ,... .“.,............,.......-_._.....,..,.~.,...a -- .-.-...........-...-....-......—.........—-.....T
_ Case 3:00-cv-00835-CF Document 457 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 1 of 3
O O
UNITED ST'ATES COURT
D STRICT OF CONNECTICUT
t
___ 5· Oo ce •35$·¢F·D
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. 5:;;;
Iaintiff _ . I Q`,
DATE: May 10, 20_0‘f5 i"
MOSTAFA REYAD AND AFA REYAD ‘_ ` 1] I -—-E-I 9
efendant 2 Y ,—,,» " ‘
·;` Z` rg
DEFENDANT’S LEGAL M MORANDIJM OF LAW IN SUPPORT FOR MOTION
TO STRIKE
This is Defendant’s Mostaf Reyad legal memorandum in support for motion to ,
Strike "Plalntiff’s Post-Trial emorandum" dated December 21, 2004 (Doc #
441), pursuant to FRCP R Ie 12(f). Indeed, the Rule mandates filing within 20
days of the adverse party fi ing. Defendant could not procedurally file during that
time, because the same is ues in that memorandum are and were the same
issues in the Appeal with t Second Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and the Supreme C urt of the United States, however, this Court
exercised its power to brea the jurisdiction and litigants must obey accordingly.
Pursuant to this Court Ord r dated April 21, 2005 (Doc # 454), Defendant has 20
days from the date of that rder to respond in timeliness.
Plaintiff’s Post—TriaI Memor ndum must be stricken in its entirely. It is well settled
that voluntary filing of an a ended complaint operates as a withdrawal ofthe
I

” `_e‘ els · -_e ee ...____,_____r_r_r_r_g_r-


· ago ·_;- E -_;_- el P; 2.,.,.,.,.,_,_,_,_,_,_,_g

Case 3:00-cv-00835:CF Document 457 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 2 of 3
LJ
prior complaint. Plaintiff fil cl his amended complaint on September 7, 2001 (Doc
# 165), accordingly, Plainti ’s original complaint dated May 8, 2000 (Doc # 1) has
been withdrawn and can f rnish no basis for a judgment.
E, Connecticut Bank o Commerce v. Julie D. Giordano et al (AC 21671)
(November 20, 2001).
The voluntary filing fan amended complaint operates as a withdrawal of
the prior complaint, nd thereafter, the earlier complaint, though remaining
in the files and con ituting part ofthe history of the case, can furnish no
basis for a judgmen , nor can any previous ruling on it be made a subject
of appeal. Royce v. estport, 183 Conn. 177, 179, 439 A. 2d 298 (1981);
Antman v. Connecti ut Light & Power Co., 117 Conn. 230, 234-35, 167 A.
715 (1933), overrul d on other ground, Buck v. Morris Park, Inc:. 153
Conn. 290, 293, 21 A. 2d 187 (1965), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 2,87 S.
Ct. 33, 17L. Ed. 2d 1966); Bennett v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, 32
Conn. App. 617, 62 , 630 A. 2d 149 (1993), rev’d on other grounds, 230
Conn. 795, 646 A. d 806 (1994); Lichteig v. Churinetz 9 Conn. App.406,
412, 519 A. 2d 99 ( 986).
g, Plaintiffs memorand m p. 1
indylviac brings the 'nstant action, tiled on May 8, 2000, against
Defendants Mostaf Reyad and his wife, Wafa Reyad ....
Thus, all Plaintiff's allegati ns are based on his complaint filed on May 8, 2000,
which is a withdrawn com Iaint, it must be stricken in its entirety as a matter of 5
law.
2

____ ._... . . ........,. -.u.-.o..........._- “... __......__ ...—........s._._..._Jt..~.........c................_.--—..
__ . _ Case 3:00-cv-00835;CF Document 457 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 3 of 3
Q Q.)
The Defendant
Mostafa Reyad /
By: AJ 4 M ,7
M stafa Re F: •
2077 Center Ave # ‘ d
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Day Phone # 203—325 · 100
Home Phone # 201-585 0562 i
E-Mail: re ad • o tonIin .net Q
• ERTIFlCAT'E OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies t at on the captioned date he has mailed the following:
each of them a true and co rect copy.
1. Kevin J. O’Conn r, Esq.
U.S. Attorneys O ice
157 Church Stre t
New Haven, CT 6510
2. David R. Schae 1-- r, Esq.
271 Whitney Ave ue _
New Haven, CT 6511
3. Wafa Reyad
2077 Center Ave # 22D
Fort Lee, NJ 070 4 M
3