Request,Application: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (THE) VS ALEJANDRO DOMINGUEZ ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Filing # 62025059 E-Filed 09/26/2017 04:08:45 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
117 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO. 2017-017671-CA-01

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE

FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE

CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN

TRUST 2006-OA10 MORTGAGE PASS-

THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES

2006-OA 10,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALEJANDRO DOMINGUEZ A/K/A

ALEJANDRO RAUL DOMINGUEZ A/K/A

ALEX DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.
/

DEFENDANT, ALEJANDRO DOMINGUEZ A/K/A ALEJANDRO RAUL DOMINGUEZ

A/K/A ALEX DOMINGUEZ’S, RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFE’S
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

COMES NOW the Defendant, ALEJANDRO DOMINGUEZ A/K/A ALEJANDRO
RAUL DOMINGUEZ A/K/A ALEX DOMINUGEZ, by and through undersigned counsel, and in
response to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions would state:

1. No response is required as to Request Number | in that it is nothing more than a
recitation of portions of Rule 1.370.

2. Defendant can neither admit nor deny the allegations set forth in Request Number 2 at

this time inasmuch as he has made reasonable inquiry and reviewed a copy of the document buthe cannot make a final determination without reviewing the original note. Accordingly this
question must be denied at this time.

3. The answer to Request No. 3 is identical to the answer to Request No. 2 and as such is
hereby denied.

4. The answer to Request No. 4 is identical to the answer to Request No. 2 and as such is
hereby denied.

5. Request No. 5 is improper as it is vague, ambiguous and can’t be answered without
consideration of all banking regulations and loan file procedures to which he isn’t privy
Accordingly, this Defendant Objects to this questions as being completely improper and incapable
of answering.

6. As to Request No. 6, Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and review the exhibits
to Plaintiff's pleadings but cannot make a final determination without both reviewing any and all
original documents relating holder in due course and standing which requires the completion of
discovery. Accordingly, this Request is denied.

7. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Request Number 7.

8. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Request Number 8 and he also is not an
attorney and therefore not qualified to answer this Request.

9. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Request Number 9

10. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Request Number 10.

11. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Request Number 11, and he is not an
attorney and therefore not qualified to answer this Request.

12. Defendant objects to Request No. 12 in that it is ambiguous, does not define the terms

of the question, requires an admission of default in order to answer the question akin to a questionsuch as “Do you still beat your child? Accordingly the Request is improper and cannot be
answered as drafted.

13. Defendant has no idea when or if the Plaintiff elected to accelerate payment of whatever
the balance might be, if any. Inasmuch as he is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth
in Request Number 13 at this time he must deny same.

14, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Request Number 14.

15. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Request Number 15.

16. The answer to Request No. 16 is the same as the answer to Request No. 2 and as such
is hereby denied

17. The answer to Request No. 17 is the same as the answer to Request No. 16 and as such
is hereby denied

18. The answer to Request No. 18 is the same as the answer to Request No. 16 and,
additionally, this questions deals with legal subjects of which this Defendant is not qualified to
respond. Therefore the question is also Objectionable and must be denied

19. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Request Number 19.

20. This Request No. 20, is very much like Request No. 12 and therefore objectionable.
Any answer that either admits or denies the Request automatically admits the two predicates to the
Request which is patently improper.

21. The answer to Request No. 21 is the same as the answer to question 20.

22. To the best of this Defendant’s knowledge the answer to Request 22 is admitted.

23. Defendant can neither admit nor deny the allegations set forth in Request Number 23

at this time inasmuch as he is without knowledge as to the allegations set forth in Request Number23 at this time and discovery would be required to even determine what type of relationship the
Plaintiff has with its own counsel

24. The answer to the final Request, No. 24 is the same as the answer to Request no. 23

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 26" day of September, 2017, a true copy of the

foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal which

   

will serve a notice of electronic filing upon Brittany Sue Gramsky, Esq., eci@aiberte! LOR;
and a true copy of foregoing has been sent via email to: Gavin Vargas, Esq.,

servealaw@albertellilaw.com, Albertelli Law, P.O. Box 23028, Tampa, Florida 33623.

 

ROBERT P. LITHMAN, P.A.
71 17" Avenue South

Lake Worth, Florida 33460
Tel. (305) 785-3428

Primary:
Secondary:

 
 

By: — /s/Robert P. Lithman
ROBERT P. LITHMAN
Florida Bar No. 224464