In an effort to magnify the ire of the Court, and not wanting in any way to argue the merits of this

case, Defendants have resorted to filing a 26 page Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave primarily focused on a 38 minute period that completed Plaintiff's filing after midnight on March 9, 2011. Plaintiff followed the Court's Order of February 23, 2011 to the letter, removing Counts VI, XII and XIII. Further, the Plaintiff's Complaint went from 23 Counts to 13, was streamlined from 49 pages to 39 pages, and contains allegations that are concise, simple and straightforward in language. All 13 Counts are viable claims and Defendants should be made to answer for them. Defendants' scheme was exceedingly complex, extremely complicated and contained multiple layers of concealment, fraudulent behavior and numerous phony documents. It is reasonable to expect the Complaint to involve some level of complexity in the unraveling of Defendants' civil violations. Plaintiff submits that the remaining Counts are not futile (as more fully explained in Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint); that the Motion was not filed untimely, and if so, such filing was not intentional, no undue prejudice would accrue to Defendants; and, the new proposed Complaint cured most, if not all of the deficiencies of the former Complaint. Plaintiff has filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike and has filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time (38 minutes) based upon inadvertence and excusable neglect on the part of counsel. Defendants falsely allege that the Plaintiff ignored and violated this Court's Order of February 23, 2011. Plaintiff's "Motion to Modify 2-23-11 Order to Allow Extension of Time to File Motion to Amend" was not filed by Plaintiff's lead counsel but by a newly entered attorney, Ed Dilone, without the knowledge or consent of lead counsel. Plaintiff's lead counsel, upon discovering the filing, immediately directed that a withdrawal of the Motion be drafted and filed. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff filed his proposed Second Amended Complaint on March 9, 2011. No leave of Court was required because the Court had previously given Leave to file. Plaintiff does not understand Defendants' issue regarding leave of Court regarding this filing. The plain fact is that because of the electronic filing system, Plaintiff began his timely compliance with the Court's Order to file by March 9th and the filing was a continuous operation until all exhibits were uploaded which was finalized at 12:38 am. The ferocity of Defendants' attack upon Plaintiff for a mere 38 minutes is uncivil since Defendants have been granted numerous courtesies for extensions of time by Plaintiff throughout the length of this case. Deficiencies are routinely issued by the Clerk concerning electronic filing and in fact Defendants' attorneys have been issued several themselves. The fact remains that the Defendants had the documents between 11:35 on the 9th and 12:38am in the wee hours of the 10th. No prejudice resulted from this to Defendants. Defendants make much of the subsequent filings of March 10, 2011, but they were merely filed out of an abundance of caution or to cure deficiency noticed by the Clerk's office. Further, the Clerk's office routinely give an additional 3 days in addition to the due date.

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 undue prejudice 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 and as 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 put additional 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 these Defendants engaging in massive fraud. Plaintiff does not make confusing allegations of fraud. They are however similar and repetitive 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 the exception of the RICO Count, prior to the Amended Complaint.