Free Motion for Hearing - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 544-2 Filed 04/15/2008 Paget of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.
Plaintiff Civil Action No.
v. 3:00CV835(CFD)
MOSTAFA REYAD and WAFA REYAD
Defendants Date:April 15,2008
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION RE: ORDER HEARING
This is Defendants Mostafa Reyad and Wafa Reyad Memorandum of law in
support of the accompanied motion RE: Hearing Order, Ordered by this Court on April
9, 2008 (Doc # 542), For a Hearing on May 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Defendants hereby
respectfully asking this Court to Reschedule the said Hearing at least 20 days after May
7, 2008.
Related Proceedings
On March 27, 2008 attorney Rowena A. Moffett wrote a letter to Honorable Droney
informing the Court that Defendants’ brief has been filed on March 7, 2008, Indymac’s
brief is currently due on April 15, 2008, and the argument ofthe Appeal may be heard
as early as the week of May 27, 2008. Attorney Moffett’s letter is correct as of that date,
however, attorney Moffett did not disclose to this Court that, she wrote the said letter in
1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 544-2 Filed 04/15/2008 Page 2 of 4
an effort to support her motion for her request for 60 days extension to file her brief, g
"Memorandum in Support of Motion for Extension of Time in which to File AppeIIee’s
Brief", dated March 27, 2008, filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, attached
. The Court of Appeals Granted on April 2"°, 2008 Indmac’s motion for 30 days,
with a capitalized notation "NO FURTHER EXTENSION", and issued Scheduling Order
# 2 [Appellee’s brief due 5/15/2008. Ready week 6/25/2008], ge Second Circuit docket
sheet, case number 07-1257, attached hereto. Thus this Court Hearing is about 8 days
before the due filing of AppeIIee’s brief, and the same time for Defendants to submit
their reply to the Court of Appeals.
The situation is more complex than the above, it may be because this Court is not
aware about the dates of the Court of Appeals, and may be not aware about the
proceedings of the action in that Court. Defendants explained the former here-above .
the latter is, unexpectedly the Court of Appeals apparently divided this litigation, did not
consider it a piecemeal litigation, and did not wait Ruling upon post-trial motions,
specifically Defendants’ motion for exemptions, and Ordered the parties to submit their
briefs. Simply put, the Hearing of May 7, 2008, is interfering with the Second Circuit
Scheduling Order. Fairness necessitates at least 20 days apart of May 7, 2008, to allow
Defendants to file their reply to the Court of Appeals, draft their reply in this Court, and
may be renew their exemption motion in the Second Circuit pursuant to the Second
Circuit Order dated October 18, 2007, attached hereto which has been repeated by its
Order dated February 15, 2008. lt is clear from the records of the Court of Appeal, that,
the Court is persuaded , by California Authority affirming that Ruling upon exempt
2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 544-2 Filed 04/15/2008 Page 3 of 4
properties is immediate appealable, in the absence of conflict of law between California
and Connecticut, E, McMullen v. Haycock (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4"‘ 75.
Moreover, this Court Order dated April 9, 2008 has invited American Express and Valic
Insurance Company to file their motions by April 30, 2008. Those third parties’
defenses are intertwining with Defendants’ defenses. Those third parties defenses are
vulnerable to PIaintiff’s attack, and may injure Defendants if not answered by
Defendants in the due time. All what Defendants ask is, they need a few hours to read
lndymac opposition if any to American Express and/or Valic, Defendants pro se(s)
cannot function upon surprise, Federal Rules granted that right to every Iitigant, and
Defendants invoke that right herein.
This Court Order, explained wisely the choice of law, as Connecticut law,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a), however, Rule 89(a) mandates that Federal Statutes
supersede the application of state laws. Here, Federal Rules mandates 21 day for
opposition, and 10 days for reply. Thus, the application of Connecticut law which does
not recognize reply, would be improper under the circumstances. In other words, if
American Express and/or Valic filed motion(s) on April 30, 2008, Indymac has up to May
20, 2008 to file opposition, and the two companies and Defendants has up to May 30,
2008 to file a reply. Thus, the Court Hearing Ordered on May 7, 2008 would be unfair,
prejudice, and unjustifiably. The Honorable Court for fairness and interest ofjustice
3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 544-2 Filed 04/15/2008 Page 4 of 4
should Order Reschedule the hearing Scheduled on May 7, 2008, at least 20 days after
May 7, 2008.
The Defendant The Defendant
Mostafa Reyad Wafa Reyad
`h
By ` L » 9, By
\} I
Mostafa Reyad Wafa Reyad
92 Aristotle Way 92 Aristotle Way
Cranbury, NJ 08512-2550 Cranbury, NJ 08512-255
Phone : 201-621-3925 Phone : 201-621-3925
E.maiI: [email protected] E.mai|:[email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned Mostafa Reyad, certifies, that on the captioned date or before has
served the attached document by mailing a true and correct copy to the following:
1- Attorney Rowena A. Moffett
Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman
271 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, CT 06511
2—American Express IDS/Ameriprise Financial c/o Gene Kodadek, Esq.
Ameriprise Financial
70100 Ameriprise Financial Center
Minneapolis, MN 55474
3—VariabIe Annuity Life Insurance Co.
c/o Joshua Cohen, Esq.
Day Pitney LLP »
One Audubon St. `·
New Haven, CT 06511 _
l i
`
Mostafa Reyad
4