8/6/2019 Joy Sur Reply

1/2

8/6/2019 Joy Sur Reply

2/2

Defendants are knowingly wrong. The new proposed Complaint does cure each

deficiency noted by this Court in its Order.

This Court, in the interest of justice, can excuse the 38 minute delay without undueprejudice to the Defendants. They did receive the documents prior to the Clerk's Notice

of deficiencies. The deficiencies were minor in nature and did not go to the merits of the

case. Statutory deadlines are routinely given an additional 3 days under the local rule andas a manner of practice by the Clerk's office.

This Plaintiff has never missed a deadline and the Defendants improperly seek to portray

the Plaintiff as cavalier as to deadlines and rules.there has not been repeated failures to cure deficiencies in the proposed Amended

Complaint.

Defendants keep stating that the amendments have been apparant to the Plaintiff since the

November 12, 2010 Rule 26 conference, totally ignoring the fact that this Court putadditional requirements on Plaintiff only since February 23, 2011.

Plaintiff did not rehash the allegations of his previous Complaint. In fact, Plaintiff took

special caution in streamlining this Complaint and met the Court's Order while still

attempting to allege what can only be stated as an elaborate and complex scheme by theseDefendants engaging in massive fraud.

Plaintiff does not make confusing allegations of fraud. They are however similar andrepetitive because each of the many Defendants engaged in different acts of fraud and

from a practical point of view, the allegations must not omit any of the predicate acts by

the Defendants. The Counts are not futile simply because Defendants call them futile. In

fact, each Defendant has previously filed an Answer to these allegations, with theexception of the RICO Count, prior to the Amended Complaint.