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

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 388

Filed 05/20/2004

Page 1 of 4

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: MAY 18, 2004 DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S CONSOLIDATION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

Defendants Mostafa Reyad and Wafa Reyad hereby respectfully reply to Plaintiff s Consolidated Opposition to Defendants Post-Trial Motions, dated May 14, 2000 (Doc # 385). Plaintiff s opposition to Defendants motion to reopen proceeding to allow Defendants additional exhibits only for counterclaims dated May 6, 2004 (Doc # 381), and Defendant Mostafa Reyad s Supplemental Brief dated May 11, 2004 (Doc # 384).

I. Defendants motion to reopen proceeding to allow Defendants additional exhibits should be Granted, it is limited only to the evidence of Defendants counterclaims. Defendants filed almost all these exhibits during pretrial stage, except new evidences regarding the excessive damages which were not available to Defendants that time, it should be Granted.

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 388

Filed 05/20/2004

Page 2 of 4

II. Defendant Supplemental Brief should be Granted. Defendant did not discover that he became legally deaf as explained by Cal. Evid. C. 754(a) except in the Trial and when he reviewed the transcript. Plaintiff s opposition p. 2 foot note 1 is reflecting the Order filed with the Clerk, marked exhibits with the Handwriting of the Honorable Judge; attached hereto (Doc # 339). Defendant in hearing impaired, but he can read. This is the only reason for Defendant to file a supplemental brief. The reason is beyond his control. Defendant is doing all efforts to have hearing aid to use it in Court. Defendant s Supplemental Brief should be Granted as a matter of evidence.

As a matter of law, Plaintiff is not entitled to provide any evidence effective April 20, 2003. Despite numerous request of Defendant Mostafa Reyad to Plaintiff s attorney Schaefer to file a claim with the insurance companies insuring Mostafa Reyad s business and insuring IndyMac, Inc. and its affiliates as additional insured. Mr. Schaefer refused and pushed Defendant to file a claim with the insurance company, Defendant asked Mr. Schaefer to provide Defendant by Plaintiff s findings, he refused repeatedly. Mr. Schaefer is an attorney for more than 30 Years. He filed Plaintiff s complaint for cause of action claiming deceptive activities, and CUTPA claims pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110(a). Plaintiff s claim is entirely void, because no one has the right to invoke a subsection of the law, and not follow another subsection of the same section of that law, see 42110 (g)(c), it mandates filing the deceptive activities with Conn. General attorney,

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 388

Filed 05/20/2004

Page 3 of 4

and Conn. Commissioner of Consumer Protection. These governmental authorities can determine the facts and punish wrongdoers. He did not, Plaintiff s claims are completely void.

The compelling evidence in this action, that, all the disputed loans were sold to other investors, no single claim for delinquent consumer payments, and no single claim in value or appraisal, evidencing that all these loans are genuine loans, no single dispute whatsoever in any loan except Plaintiff s false claims.

3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 388

Filed 05/20/2004

Page 4 of 4

The Defendant Mostafa Reyad

The Defendant Wafa Reyad

By: Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Day Phone 203-325-4100

By: Wafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Home Phone 201-585-0562

CERTIFICATION 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.

Mostafa Reyad

4