Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 346

Filed 03/26/2004

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)

MARCH 25, 2004

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' TRIAL EXHIBITS Pursuant to the Court's direction during the pretrial conference held on March 23, 2004, that the parties set forth all objections, including relevance, to the admissibility of any trial exhibits, Plaintiff's objections to Defendants' proposed trial exhibits, appended to "Defendants' Revised List of Exhibits" dated March 10, 2004, are as follows: EXHIBIT NO. 1 DESCRIPTION Letter from M. Winiarski to M. Reyad dated 5/22/00 OBJECTION This exhibit does not appear to be relevant to any disputed claim or defense in this action. The loans outstanding on the warehouse line of credit at the time this action was instituted are not in dispute. In addition, the documents attached to the letter do not appear to have been faxed with the letter. This exhibit does not appear to be relevant to any claim or defense in this action. It is not clear how the draft agreement relates to any issue in this case. In addition, the document is unsigned. The letter clearly states that it was sent as part of compromise negotiations within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 408. This exhibit is incomplete, as it contains only certain pages of the Master Revolving Loan and Security Agreement. The whole Agreement should be introduced. See Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 1. See objection to Exhibit 7 above. This exhibit contains hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 802. In addition, Plaintiff objects to Defendants' proffer of

5

6

7

Agreement With Respect to Waiver of Anti-Deficiency Provisions Letter from L. Jacobs to M. Reyad dated 6/16/00 Pages 17-18 of Lending Agreement

8 9

Pages 23-25, 43 of Lending Agreement Letter from R. Altomara dated

m:\docs\04127\001\821679.doc

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 346

Filed 03/26/2004

Page 2 of 4

EXHIBIT NO. 10

DESCRIPTION

OBJECTION

11

12

16

17

18

6/1/00 testimony from this individual via letter. Letter from L. Haskell This exhibit contains hearsay and inadmissible dated 6/2/00 opinions of Wafa Reyad's character or mental state. See Fed. R. Evid. 404, 701, 802. In addition, Plaintiff objects to Defendants' proffer of testimony from this individual via letter. This exhibit does not appear to be relevant to any Slurszberg v. claim or defense at issue during the trial of this action. Prudential, 15 N.J. This document appears to relate to the Reyad's claim Misc. 423 (1936) that certain assets garnished pursuant to the prejudgment remedy ordered in this matter should be exempt from garnishment. This claim already has been rejected by this Court. Moreover, it is not relevant to the liability/damages determination to be made by the Court at the bench trial of this matter. Various documents See objection to Exhibit 11 above. re: Defendants' assets garnished pursuant to prejudgment remedy Orders of the United This exhibit does not appear to be relevant to any States Court of claim or defense in this action. It is not clear how the Appeals for the Third decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals Circuit in IndyMac dismissing Mr. Reyad's appeal is relevant to the issues in this case. Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v. Reyad, C.A. Nos. 03-3262 Notices of Lapse of This exhibit does not appear to be relevant to any insurance contracts claim or defense in this action. These insurance policies appear to have been held by the Defendants' children, not by the Defendants themselves. Moreover, it is not clear how the fact that the insurance contracts may have lapsed is relevant to the issues in this case. Surrender of This exhibit does not appear to be relevant to any insurance policy claim or defense in this action. It is not clear how the fact that Mr. Reyad may have cashed in an insurance policy is relevant to the issues in this case. In addition, it does not appear that Defendants disclosed the existence of this insurance policy in conjunction with the prejudgment remedy ordered by this Court.

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 346

Filed 03/26/2004

Page 3 of 4

PLAINTIFF INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. By:__/s/ Rowena R. Moffett, Esq.________ David R. Schaefer (ct04334) Rowena A. Moffett (ct19811) BRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN LLP Their Attorneys 271 Whitney Avenue P.O. Box 1746 New Haven, CT 06507-1746 Tel. (203) 772-2600 Fax. (203) 772-4008

3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 346

Filed 03/26/2004

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, postage prepaid, this 25th day of March, 2004 upon:

Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave #22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Wafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave #22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 In addition, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile (203-325-3923) upon Mostafa Reyad this 25th day of March, 2004.

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

4