CARL D. POPLAR, P.A. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

CARL D. POPLAR (856) 216-9979 Certified Civil Trial Attorney 

Certified Criminal Trial Attorney 

DAVID E. POPLAR * • Member NJ & PA Bar 1010 Kings Highway South 

Building Two 

FAX (856) 216-9970 

WWw.pop{ar{aw.com 

Cherry Hill. New Jersey 08034 

July 15, 2011 

Hon. Claire C. Cecchi, 

United States District Judge 

Martin Luther King Building & 

U.S. Courthouse 

50 Walnut Street 

Newark, NJ 07101 

Re: Anderson v. TormaHi. No.2: ll-cv-000525 CCC-JAD 

Dear Judge Cecchi: 

This firm and George Richardson of Sullivan & Worcester represent the defendants in the 

above-captioned matter. By this letter, we request leave to respond to plaintiffs counsel's letter 

to the Court dated July 5, 2011 

Pending before this Court is the issue of whether this lawsuit has properly been brought 

in the Federal District Court in New Jersey. The Jokela Declaration does not attempt to resolve 

the substantive dispute, but only confirms that the Finish legal system is more than adequate to 

address the dispute. 

In the letter, plaintiff asks the Court not "to review or otherwise give credit" to the Declaration ofAntti Jokela. We submitted the Jokela Declaration to address the argument in plaintiffs opposition to our motion to dismiss on the ground offorum non conveniens regarding the 

adequacy ofFinland as a forum to hear this dispute. The adequacy of Finland as a forum was 

front and center in our moving papers. Plaintiffjoined issue in its opposition, but now believes, 

apparently, that defendants were to stand mute in reply. Rather than address this relevant procedural issue ofthe appropriateness ofthe Finish forum, the plaintiff asks this Court not to read the 

document. ' 

Plaintiff simply is incorrect when it writes "for the first time on reply do defendants urge 

that the entire action, including the fraud and other common law claims should be governed by 

Finnish law.... This is a completely new position ...." In making this statement, plaintiff 

points only to a single sentence in a conclusory paragraph on the last page of Professor Jokela's 

declaration. Read in its entirety, it is clear that the Jokela Declaration does not purport to address 

Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 44 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 318
Hon. Claire C. Cecchi, 

United States District Judge 

July 15,2011 

Page 2 

plaintiffs so-called "common law claims." See Jokela Dec. at 1-2 (setting forth the questions he 

was asked to consider); id. § III (discussing willingness ofFinnish court to hear a fraud claim). 

We readily acknowledge that Professor Jokela addresses plaintiffs fraud claim, but this 

is not new because Vesa Turkki addressed this issue in his declaration submitted with our moving papers. See Declaration of Vesa Turkki 8 (April 29, 2011 ).1 

Simply put, Professor Jokela's declaration does not address any issue that was not raised 

in our moving papers. Thus plaintiff s arguments that the Court should not consider the declaration are baseless. 

Should the Court require anything further, we would be pleased to provide it. 

Respectfully submitted, 

lsI CARL D. POPLAR 

Carl D. Poplar (4791) 

And 

George O. Richardson, 111* 

cc Steven M. Hecht, Counsel for plaintiff 

*Not admitted in New Jersey. Motion to be admitted pro hac vice pending. 

1 At this point in time, defendants do not have sufficient facts to determine what law 

should control plaintiffs "common law" claims. Defendants reserve their rights under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 44.1 to give notice of foreign law if appropriate. 

Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 44 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 319