Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

i ___ FILED _ ITJIDGED
‘ ____ RECEIVED _;_ COPY
MAY 0 I is
] Ammar Halloum 8 2006
CLERK 0 S D15 1 ewzst comm
» S 1 " /x‘w/·..>#—.;
2 rei: 480-593-4444 av. ..fl]HYT.- rsmerv
Fax; 6()2_268_6644 1 .m-._;.;;;;.l,;;:.. e¤T_;
3 Plaintiff (pro se)
4
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
8 Ammar Halloum NO. CIV-02-02245-PHX-EHC
9 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN
OPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
10 Vs. MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 1
Intel Corporation,
12 Defendant.
13 I
14 Intel Corporation,
1 5 Counterclaimant,
16 Vs.
17 Ammar Halloum and Sawsan Hamad
I Counterdefendants.
18
19 MOTION
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Ammar Halloum hereby moves this Court not to
20
21 accept Defendant’s Intel Corporation Motion to continue trial, which is scheduled to
22 commence on May 31 through June 2, 2006.
23 This is a 2002 case that has been ongoing for four years, and the Plaintiffs
24
health cannot bear the pain, and the emotional distress of continuing to live the case
25
26 with more delay. According to Plaintiffs health providers, putting a closure on this
27 case is the essential factor to improve the Plaintiffs health; and on the other hand,
28
Case 2:02—cv—02245-EHC Document 152 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 1 013

l delaying the case will continue to add more agony, and depression to the Plaintiff.
2 Plaintiff had changed the scheduling of two doctors tow times in this case,
3 and will be very frustrating to the doctors to reschedule them for the third time in
5 two months period, and the doctors may not be available at the same time at a later
6 date.
7 Intel and its witness can easily delay the eight weeks sabbatical/vacation by
S five days by having Mr. Callaghan starts his vacation on June 3, 2006 instead of May
10 29, 2006.
ll Plaintiff has no conflict with the present trial scheduling contrary to Intel’s
12 I deceiving statement in the third paragraph of its Motion. Intel inaccurately quoted that
E at the last pretrial conference held on April l7, 2006, the plaintiff stated that he may
15 have a conflict with the present trial scheduling.
16 Plaintiff is very suspicious of Intel’s excuse since in different cases, Intel
17 has used the technique of continuing trials in the last minutes due to business activities
ig of witnesses, or vacation times.
20 The Plaintiff objects to any delay of this trial, and will not object to
2] advancing the schedule to commence on May 24 or 25, 2006.
22 For the forgoing reasons, and particularly due to Plaintiffs health, Plaintiff
ii prays and requests this Court not to delay the trial for any reason.
25 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of May 2006.
26 K. p ga M ppq__ g
27 By: f
” la1nt1ffAmmar Hal oum, pro se
28
-2-
Case 2:02—cv—02245-EHC Document 152 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 2 of 3

1
`
3 The Original submitted
this day of May, 2006
4 Honorable Judge Earl H. Carroll
5 And
United States District Court
6 A Copy of the foregoing .
7 mailed this _Q day of May, 2006 to:
Michael D. Moberly
8 One North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 s
Phoenix, AZ 85001-4414
9 Attorney for Defendant Intel Corporation
10 -g&__J.#
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17 g
18
19
20
21
22 l
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC Document 152 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 152

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 152

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 152

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 3 of 3