Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:OO—cv-00835-CFD Document 534 Filed 10/O3/2007 Paget of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., CIVIL ACTION NO.
7 Plaintiff, : 3:00CV835(CFD)
MOSTAFA REYAD and WAFA REYAD, OCTOBER 2, 2007
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER
AUTHORIZING REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENT IN ANOTHER DISTRICT
Plaintiff IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. ("lndyMac") submits the instant reply memorandum in
further support of its Motion, dated September 17, 2007 (doc. #529), requesting an
order permitting the immediate registration in the District of New Jersey of the Judgment
entered ln the above—captioned matter on April 30, 2007 (and/or the Amended
Judgment proposed by the Court on August 6, 2007, if the Court’s request to file same
is granted by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) (the “Judgment"),
notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal of said Judgment. In their Objection for
Order Authorizing Judgment in Another District dated September 20, 2007 (doc. # 531)
(the "Objectlon"), Defendants erroneously maintain that New Jersey law does not permit
registration of a foreign judgment until the conclusion of any appeal concerning said
judgment. Defendants grossly misstate the law in this regard, and go so far as to
attempt to mislead the Court by failing to quote accurately the statutory provision upon
which they rely. As discussed in Plaintiff’s initial Motion and below, registration of the j
Judgment in the District of New Jersey is entirely proper, and should proceed without
delay.
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 534 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 2 of 4
As an initial matter, Plaintiff seeks permission to register the Judgment in the
District of New Jersey, g in the New Jersey state court. Accordingly, the federal law i
governing registration of foreign judgments cited in PIaintiff’s initial Motion (28 U.S.C. §
1963) applies in the instant matter, and not the state laws cited by Defendants.
Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ claims, New Jersey state law does, in fact,
authorize the immediate registration of and execution upon a foreign judgment pending
appeal absent the posting of a supersedeas bond.
N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-29, inaccurately cited by Defendants, provides in actuality:
§ 2A:49A-29. Appeal, stay of execution, enforcement
a. lf the judgment debtor shows the Superior Court that an appeal from
the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken, or that a stay of execution
has been granted, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign
judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the
stay of execution expires or is vacated, upon proof that the judgment
debtor has furnished security for the satisfaction of the judgment required
by the state in which it was rendered.
b. If the judgment debtor shows the Superior Court any ground upon
which enforcement of a judgment of the Superior Court would be stayed,
the Superior Court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an
appropriate period, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the
judgment which is required in this State.
N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-29 (emphasis added) (Exhibit 1 hereto). In fact, in order to stay
execution of a foreign judgment pursuant to New Jersey's version of the Uniform
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 2A:49A-25 to 2A:49A-33, a
judgment debtor must strictly comply with the provisions of N.J.S.A. § 2A:49A-29 and
post security for satisfaction of the judgment before a stay is issued, even if the debtor
raises a due process defense to the judgment. State of Maine v. SeKap, S.A. Greek Co-
op. Cigarette Mfg., S.A., 392 N.J. Super. 227, 241-42, 920 A.2d 667, 675-76, 2007 N.J. i
Super. LEXIS 111, at * 21-22 (N.J. App. Div. 2007) (Exhibit 2 hereto). Having failed to
A09873.Doc 2

Case 3:OO—cv-00835-CFD Document 534 Filed 10/O3/2007 Page 3 of 4
furnish security for the satisfaction of the Judgment, Defendants are not entitled to a
stay of enforcement, either in the District of Connecticut or in any New Jersey Court.1
ln their Objection, Defendants also cite to New Jersey’s lis pendens notice statute,
N.J.S.A. 2A:15-11. This citation appears inapposite, however, because Defendants’
shares in the cooperative apartment in New Jersey are not real property. As part of the
ancillary New Jersey Action initiated at the outset of this action in order to obtain
prejudgment remedies with respect to property located in New Jersey, Plaintiff did
attach Defendants’ coop shares in order to preserve that asset pending the entry of
Judgment in this action, which attachment remains in full force and effect.
In summary, Defendants’ Objection is completely without merit. For these reasons,
as well as for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Authorizing
Registration of Judgment in Another District (doc. # 529), Plaintiff requests that this
Court permit Plaintiff to register the Judgment immediately in the District of New Jersey.
Plaintiff also reiterates its request that the Court expedite its decision on PIaintiff’s
Motion because unless prompt action is taken to enforce the Judgment in the District of
New Jersey, Defendants may attempt to liquidate or encumber their only other asset of
which Plaintiff is aware at this time, namely their residence in Fort Lee, New Jersey.
1 Similarly, under New Jersey law, an appeal does not automatically stay execution
upon a New Jersey trial court judgment. E N.J. Appellate Court Rule 2:9-5 (Exhibit 3
hereto) ("[N]either an appeal, nor motion for leave to appeal, nor a proceeding for
certification, nor any other proceeding in the matter shall stay proceedings in any court
in a civil action .... "). Moreover, a moneyjudgment entered in New Jersey state court
automatically becomes a lien on real property of the debtor. g N.J.S.A. 2A:16-1
(Exhibit 4 hereto) ("No judgment of the superior court shall affect or bind any real estate,
but from the time of the actual entry of such judgment on the minutes or records of the
court."); Matter of Clifton, 35 B.R. 785, 786-87 (D.N.J. Bankr. 1983) (Exhibit 5 hereto)
(under New Jersey law, final judgment for sum certain entered in superior court
automatically creates lien upon all real property owned byjudgment debtor located
within the state)
A09873.DOC 3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 534 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 4 of 4
PLAINTIFF INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.
David R. Schaefer (ct04334)
Rowena A. Moffett (ct19811)
BRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN LLP
» Its Attorneys
271 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, CT 06507-1746
Tel. (203) 772-2600
Fax. (203) 562-2098 i
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Z
This is to certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served by A
United States first-class mail and by electronic mail this 2"" day of October, 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].
l
Rowena A. Moffett (ct19811)
l
l

A09873.DOC 4