Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07—cv—00009-GIVIS-IVIPT Document 17 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MAL DUSZAK, :
Plaintiff,
vt. Case No. O'?cvOOO9
EDWARD ABRAHAM ROSENMAN;
WAKISHA ROSENMAN a/lc/a WAKISHA :
NOCOLAS; FIRST GUARDIAN FINANCIAL :
CORPORATION; TRAFALGAR LEASING & 1
FINANCE CORPORATION; COSMOS :
GROUP; WINDSOR CAPITAL, LTD,; FAUZIE :
MOIIAMED a/lt/a FAUZIE MOHAMAIED; :
““.IOI—IN” LNU; JOHN DOES l-100, :
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Defendants Edward Abraham Rosenman, Waltisha Rosenman a/lc/a Walcisha Nocoias,
First Guardian Financial Corporation, Trafalgar Leasing & Finance Corporation, Cosmos Group,
Windsor Capital Ltd., and Fauzie Mohamed a/Ida Fauzie Mohaniaed (collectively, the
Defendants"), by and through their undersigned attorney, oppose the Plainti ff" s inotion to
reconsider this Honorable Conrt’s order of`February I3, 2007 granting an extension of tiine to
answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint and state as follows:
l. Plaintiff’ s motion assumes, we beiieve inaccurately, that the Court granted
DefencIants’ Motion without considering Piaintift°’ s objection. Ifthe Court did in
fact consider Plaintifl"s objection, there is no basis for Plaintiff" s Motion to
Reconsider under Local District Court Civii Ruie 7.,l .5 since it does not raise any
new issues and there is no evidence that the Court misunderstood the issue at the
time it issued its ruiing;
21 The seven (7) Defendants on whose behalf the inotion was tiled are not seeking
an indefinite extension but merely an opportunity to assess the actuai state of the

Case 1 :07—cv—00009-GIVIS-IVIPT Document 17 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 2 of 3
pleadings, parties and other critical facts that should be ltnown before a response
is tiled. The Plaintiff concedes that she has not even determined who the relevant
parties are, may not have named all of them in the Complaint and may want to
plead additional facts. The Plaintiff also concedes that she has not even served all
of the Defendants who filed the motion for an extension. Despite the foregoing,
Plaintiff wants the named defendants (who ostensibly were served) to file their
answers immediately and irrespective of the fluidity of her allegations The
Plaintiff obviously seeks to gain an unfair advantage through haste.
3. Similarly, I understand that the Plaintiff has also caused subpoenas to be issued in
New York and Pennsylvania in this case, at least some of which are believed to be
improper. Defendants are considering the appropriate responses to them in those
respective forums.
4. The Court should also ltnow that the complaint designates as Plaintiff’ s telephone
number the following: 888—546-2320. The individual answering this number
purports to be the Plaintiffs husband, an individual named "Keith Maydal<" who,
according to our research, is a convicted felon currently engaged in countless
lawsuits with everyone from sentencingjudges to the cooks in the prison cafeteria
where he once sojoumed. Though he is not a member of the bar of this Court, Mr.
Maydek insists that he represents his wife, Mal Duszalt - Le., the "pro se"
plaintiff in these proceedings. For her part, Ms. Duszalc allegedly resides in
Poland. We have also observed that her Court tilings are not actually signed but
rather reflect the imprint of a rubber stamp bearing her name.
5. I also note that since plaintiff is not a member of any bar association and,
therefore, is not under any ethical obligations in her representations to this Court,
her hearsay statements cannot be accepted.
6. To the extent that the Court is inclined to grant the motion for reconsideration, the
Defendants respectfully request a hearing during which this allegedly pro se

Case 1:07-cv-0O009—G|\/|S—|\/IPT Document 17 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
plaintiff may herself appear and address the foregoing concerns,.
WHEREFORE, the Moving Defcmdarrts respeotfuliy request that the Court deny the
Piaiixtiffs motion to reconsider and grant any further reliefthe Court deemsjust and proper;
Respectfully submitted,
k‘;c%
.io111§-E/Pltiiiigs, if (Bar No. 110)
PHI IPS, G .Iff)1\/IAN & SPENCE, PA.
1200 N. Broom Street
Wilmi11gtor1, DE I9806
(302) 655-4200 (telephone)
(302.) 655—42i0 (fax)
DATE: February 16, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-OOOO9-GIVIS-|\/IPT Document 17-2 Filed O2/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVECE
I hereby certify that on February I6, 2007, a copy of the fO1"CgO111g D€f€11CiP3.l}iS’
Opposition to Motion to Reconsider was served upon the foilowirag person(s) via facsimile anti
first cziass, postage prepaid mail:
Mai Duszak
613 Cross Street East
Mciieespoit, PA 15035
Fax Num‘oe:": 1—800—572—4403
J 01% Pi1ii1éps%.f11, Esquire (#110)