V I R G I N I A :

         IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
                           CIVIL DIVISION


RAM AVRAHAMI,

     Plaintiff,

v.                                     Civil Action No. 95-7479


U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, INC.,

     Defendant.


       PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY

     COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Ram Avrahami, by counsel, and opposes
the Motion for Stay filed by Defendant U.S. News and World Report,
Inc., ("U.S. News") on the grounds as set forth herein.

                            ARGUMENT

     This action was filed on July 21, 1995, seeking damages for
the misappropriation by Defendant of Plaintiff's name and/or
likeness pursuant to Virginia Code 8.01-40.<1> At the return date
of August 21, 1995, counsel for Defendant appeared in open court
and agreed to a trial date of November 27, 1995. Defendant has not
filed a formal answer, pleading or dispositive motion in this case.
     In what amounts to an attempt by Defendant to enjoin
Plaintiff's right to an action at law, on or about October 24,
1995, a full three months after Plaintiff filed this action,
Defendant  U.S. News filed a Motion for Stay. The essential basis
for Defendant's motion is that Defendant filed a separate action in
chancery in Arlington County Circuit Court seeking to adjudicate
the same issue before this Court. Defendant's Motion for Stay
should be denied for the following reasons: (1) this court has
proper jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim and Defendant has failed
to remove the case to Circuit Court; (2) the motion is a procedural
ruse to have Plaintiff's cause decided in Defendant's forum and on
Defendant's position; and (3) Plaintiff filed a demurrer to
Defendant's Motion for Declaratory Judgement, attached hereto as
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.

     I.     This Court Has Proper Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff's 
     Claim and Defendant Has Failed to Remove the Case to Circuit
     Court.

     Defendant relies in support of its motion upon the allegation
that staying Plaintiff's action would "conserve judicial resources"
and that "the decision of this Court may be appealed to the Circuit
Court de novo" Defendant's Motion for Stay, at 2. This rather
disingenuous argument is defeated by the fact that Defendant was
afforded the procedural opportunity to remove Plaintiff's case to
Circuit Court pursuant to VA Code Section 16.1-92. Were Defendant
concerned about judicial resources and the possibility of a de novo
appeal, it would have attempted to remove the case to Circuit
Court. The Virginia Code established an explicit procedure for
removal from General District Court to Circuit Court. As required
by the code, however, Defendant failed to file an affidavit
indicating there was a substantial defense to Plaintiff's claim
within ten days after the return day. By filing a new and separate
action as Plaintiff in Circuit Court and then filing a Motion for
Stay in this Court, Defendant is attempting to remove a case
properly before this Court without abiding by statutory procedures.
Defendant has erred procedurally and it cannot deprive this Court
of its proper jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim.

     II.    Defendant's Motion for Stay is a Procedural Ruse to 
            Have Plaintiff's Cause Decided in Defendant's Forum and
            on Defendant's Position.

     Defendant's Motion for Stay and Motion for Declaratory
Judgement are together designed to permit Defendant to have
Plaintiff's cause decided on Defendant's pleadings and in
Defendant's chosen forum. As set forth in the attached Demurrer to
U.S. News' Motion for Declaratory Judgement, declaratory judgement
motions are improper when designed to choose a forum or to force a
party on the defensive. This court has proper jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's claim and it should remain before this Court.
Plaintiff's action should proceed as scheduled to a full hearing on
the merits.

     III.   Conclusion

     WHEREFORE, for the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff prays
that this Court deny Defendant's Motion for Stay.


                                    RAM AVRAHAMI
                                    By Counsel


Law Offices of Jonathan C. Dailey
1050 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 496-1290

By:         /s/
    Jonathan C. Dailey (#37442)


_________________________
<1> Defendant's Motion for Stay inaccurately states that Plaintiff
commenced this action "on or about August 21, 1995." See
Defendant's Motion for Stay, at 1.