RULE 3.7 ATTORNEY-WITNESS RULE STATES THAT THE COURT HAS PROPER OBJECTION WHEN THE TRIER OF FACT MAY BE CONFUSED OR MISLED BY A LAWYER SERVING AS BOTH ADVOCATE AND WITNESS. EXHIBIT 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Jerome Pintaro; Marilyn Pintaro Plaintiffs, v. James D. Orel; et al Defendants. Case No.: 23-cv-1425 Judge Durkin Magistrate Judge McShain CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT NOW COMES Dimitri A. Sayegh (“Sayegh”), Majd G. Khoury (“Khoury”), and Adham Alaily (“Alaily”), collectively referred to as the “Defendants” by and through their attorneys, Egan & Alaily LLC, and for their reply in support of their request to be dismissed from this proceeding pursuant to Fed R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) states as follows: I. Argument The Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss suffers from the same defects as the complaint. Namely, the Plaintiffs recite the same conclusions set forth in the complaint. No explanation is provided as to how the complaint complies with federal pleading requirements, and no facts are pointed to that could cure the defective pleading. Instead, Plaintiffs set forth conclusions with no link to a plausible cause of action (i.e. “Adham Alaily has allegedly engaged in fraud, forgery, bank fraud, foreclosure fraud, mortgage fraud, solicitation to commit a crime, and obstruction of justice, and fraud on the 18th Judicial Circuit Court and is attempting to commit fraud on this U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois as well, in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1983). (Response, Page 13). Moreover, the exhibits to the Plaintiffs’ response reinforces the fact that Plaintiffs are attempting to re-litigate a state court case (in which, according to the Plaintiffs’ exhibits, Defendants 1
Sayegh and Khoury, by their counsel Adham Alaily, were successful in obtaining a stalking nocontact order against Jerome Pintaro). This supports Defendants’ assertion that no federal question exists in this case. For the reasons stated in Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Defendants Sayegh, Khoury, and Alaily, should be dismissed from this case. WHEREFORE and for the foregoing reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants; in the alternative leave to replead should only be granted on the condition that Plaintiffs provide a proposed amended complaint that complies with applicable rules and sets forth the jurisdictional and factual basis for their cause of action against the Defendants, and for any other just relief. Dimitri A. Sayegh, Majd G. Khoury, Adham Alaily By: /s/ Adham Alaily One of their attorneys Egan & Alaily LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 2120 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 253-8640 clerk@ea-atty.com 2
Fleepit Digital © 2021