John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Supap Kirtsaeng et al

Filing 15

BRIEF re: 14 Brief ISRAEL DECLARATION. Document filed by Supap Kirtsaeng. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Israel aff exh 1, # 2 Exhibit Israel decl exh 2, # 3 Exhibit ISRAEL DECL EXH 3, # 4 Exhibit ISRAEL DECL EXH 4, # 5 Exhibit ISRAEL DECL EXH 5, # 6 Exhibit ISRAEL DECL EXH. 6, # 7 Exhibit ISRAEL DECL EXH. 7)(Israel, Sam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.,
08 CV 7834
Plaintiff
Lynch, G, USDJ
-againstSUPAP KIRTSAENG D/B/A BLUECHRISTINE99
and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-5,
Defendants
___________________________________________X

DECLARATION OF SAM P. ISRAEL
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
ATTACHMENT AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Sam P. Israel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares under penalties of perjury that the
following is true and correct:
1.

I am a member of this Court in good standing and my firm is counsel to defendant

Supap Kirtsaeng, in this matter. I submit this declaration upon my own personal
knowledge, together with the declaration of Supap Kirtsaeng and opposing memorandum
of law, in opposition to the motion (the “Motion”) of Plaintiff John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
(“Plaintiff” or “Wiley”) seeking an order of attachment as well as a preliminary
injunction.
2.

I make this declaration to submit true and correct copies of certain documents to

the Court for its consideration in deliberations on the Motion, as well as to place before
the Court certain unofficially reported decisions.
3.

Exhibit 1 hereto consists of a true and correct copy of the Decision of the District

Court for the Southern District of New York in Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v.
1

Granada Electronics, Inc., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29114 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 1986).
4.

Exhibit 2 hereto consists of a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff’s interrogatory

responses.
5.

Exhibit 3 hereto consists of a true and correct copy of the Decision of the District

Court for the Southern District of New York in Lehman Bros. Fin. S.A. v. Shenkman,
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13446 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2001).
6.

Exhibit 4 hereto consists of a true and correct copy of the Decision of the District

Court for the Eastern District of New York in Encore Credit Corp. v. Lamattina, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2935 (Jan. 18, 2006 E.D.N.Y.).
7.

Exhibit 5 hereto consists of a true and correct copy of the Decision of the District

Court for the Southern District of New York in General Re Fin. Prods. Corp. v. Southern
Cal. Edison Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1117, 2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2001).
8.

Exhibit 6 hereto consists of a true and correct copy of the Decision of the District

Court for the Eastern District of New York in Colon v. Cole Bros. Circus, Inc., 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 76473, 7-8 (Oct. 12, 2007 E.D.N.Y.).
9.

Exhibit 7 hereto consists of the Defendant’s Interrogatory Responses.

10.

For reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, I respectfully

submit that the Motion should be denied in its entirety and the Court should grant such
other and further relief that it deems just and proper.
New York, New York
May 6, 2009

By:s/____________________
Sam P. Israel (SPI0270)

2

3