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

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 498

Filed 05/14/2007

Page 1 of 4

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)

MAY 14, 2007

PLAINTIFF' CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO S DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS PURSUANT TO RULES 59 & 60(B)(3) Plaintiff IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (" IndyMac"submits the instant consolidated ) memorandum in opposition to Defendant'60(B)(3) Motion dated April 25, 2006 s (Doc. #495) and Defendant'59 Motion dated April 27, 2006 (Doc. # 496).1 In both of s Defendant'latest motions, Defendant Mostafa Reyad challenges the Court'decisions s s following the bench trial of this matter, as set forth in its July 26, 2006 Memorandum of Decision (Doc. # 466) and its April 23, 2007 Memorandum of Decision Regarding Punitive Damages and Attorney'Fees (Doc. # 494). As grounds for these motions, s Defendant reiterates his baseless claims, rejected on numerous occasions heretofore by this Court, that IndyMac proffered perjured testimony of Brian Ainslie and forged documents in support of IndyMac'claims in this matter. s
1

IndyMac submits the instant memorandum in opposition to defendant'latest motions, s in the event that said motions are not deemed denied by virtue of the Court'entry of s final judgment in this matter on April 30, 2007, after the filing of Defendant'subject s motions. See Mosier v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 132 F.2d 710, 711-713 (2d Cir. 1942) (" [T]he entry of final judgment in a cause is in effect an overruling of all motions pending prior thereto in the case." Dunn v Truck World, Inc., 929 F.2d 311, ); th 313 (7 Cir. 1991) (" When a party files a pre-judgment motion for a new trial [pursuant to Rule 59], the judgment itself is the order ` denying a new trial') (citing Mosier v. ." Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 132 F.2d 710 (2d Cir. 1942)).
m:\docs\04127\001\9w6468.doc

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 498

Filed 05/14/2007

Page 2 of 4

As Defendant concedes in both of his latest motions, Defendant repeatedly has raised, and the Court has rejected, these claims numerous times previously. See, e.g., 3/14/02 Endorsement Order denying Defendant Mostafa Reyad'Motion Pressing s Perjury Charges (Garfinkel, M.J.) (Doc. # 160); 7/15/02 Endorsement Order denying Defendant Mostafa Reyad'Request for Reconsideration for his Motion Pressing s Perjury Charges (Garfinkel, M.J.) (Doc. # 211); 4/6/04 Trial Transcript, at pp. 181-83 (oral ruling denying Defendant Mostafa Reyad'request during the bench trial to refer s Brian Ainslie to the U.S. Attorney'Office for criminal prosecution for perjury); 2/8/05 s Endorsement Order (Doc. # 451) denying Defendants' Motion for New Trial (Doc. # 369) and Defendant'Petition for an Order to Refer Brian E. Ainslie and Attorney David R. s Schaefer to U.S. Attorney'Office for a Possible Criminal Investigation (Doc. # 371); s 2/25/05 Endorsement Order (Doc. # 452) denying Defendants' Motion to Reopen Proceedings (Doc. # 381) and Motion to Reopen Trial (Doc. # 390); Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 16, 2005 (Doc. #458), at pp. 34-37, 43-58; 7/26/06 Memorandum of Decision (Doc. # 466); Defendants' Brief dated 11/7/06 (Doc. # 480), at pp. 34-36; 3/5/07 Endorsement Order denying Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 470), Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 471) and Motion to Set Aside Judgment (Doc. # 474); 4/23/07 Memorandum of Decision Regarding Punitive Damages and Attorney'Fees (Doc. # 494). Accordingly, IndyMac incorporates by s reference its prior arguments in this regard, and requests that the Court deny Defendant Mostafa Reyad'latest motions summarily. s IndyMac further notes that Mr. Reyad has now filed six post-trial motions seeking to reverse the Court'Decisions, in each of which he raises arguments that have been s

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 498

Filed 05/14/2007

Page 3 of 4

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 costs of this litigation. IndyMac urges the Court to direct that Defendants file no further motions raising the same argument before this Court, as such is an abuse of process and an unnecessary use of the Court' s resources, and that IndyMac need not incur the additional expense of responding to future motions without first being directed to do so by the Court. WHEREFORE, IndyMac requests that Defendant'60(B)(3) Motion (Doc. # 495) s and Defendant'59 Motion (Doc. # 496) be denied. s

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) 562-2098 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 498

Filed 05/14/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served by United States first-class mail, this 14th day of May, 2007 upon:

Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave #22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Wafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave #22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024.

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

4