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

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 493

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00CV835 (CFD)

V.

MOSTAFA REYAD AND WAFA REYAD Defendants DATE: APRIL 6, 2007

DEFENDANT S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III

Defendant Mostafa Reyad hereby, respectfully submits Reply to Plaintiff s Opposition to Motion is pursuant to Article III , dated March 29, 2007 (Doc # 491). Plaintiff fails to proffer any fact or evidence, and fails to state any legal defense to Defendant s motion. Plaintiff s failure is the legal ground to Grant Defendant s motion.

Plaintiff stating that Defendant raises argument again relying on Article III. Defendant s motion is pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(h)(3), it must be filed in a separate motion in compliance with the Second Circuit Laws, which mandates well pleadings in any issue to be raised. Defendant s motion is heavily relies on the irreducible constitutional minimum standing established by

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 493

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 2 of 3

Lujan 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, and the injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized. Here, in this action, Plaintiff proffer evidence for 10 loans, and a statement for the remaining 23 loans without any evidence. At the trial date on April 6, 2004, Plaintiff provided false evidence of damages in the amount of $ 66,407.57 for 10 loans, these 10 loans performed as required, no loan was delinquent in any payment, and the $ 66,407.57 was the result of escalation of interest rate higher than the notes rate delivered to the individual borrowers. Defendant raised that defense after the Court Ruled awarding Plaintiff the damages of $ 243,849.78 in its Order dated July 26, 2006 (Order $ 466). Plaintiff s opposition at p. 1 stating that Plaintiff has respond to Article III in Plaintiff s Post-Trial Memorandum dated December 21, 2004 (Doc # 441), certainly, Plaintiff s statement impossible to be correct. In fact, Plaintiff never respond to Article III, even after Defendant raised that defense. The law is clear, no evidence of injury-in-fact, concrete and particularized, there will be no jurisdiction, as the case before the Court.

Defendant reiterate all his defenses in motion to dismiss pursuant to Article III.

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 493

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 3 of 3

The Defendant Mostafa Reyad

By: Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Avenue # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Home Phone # 201-585-0562 Day Phone # 203-325-4100 Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that he mailed on the captioned date a true and correct copy to Attorney David Schaefer at 271 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511 and hand delivered to Wafa Reyad.

Mostafa Reyad

3