Infraegis Vs Delba P Correa

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DELBA P. CORREA, an Individual, and ) WORLD ADVISERS INC., a foreign corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No.
JURY DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC., by and through its undersigned counsel, and for its Complaint against Defendants DELBA P. CORREA and WORLD ADVISERS INC., states as follows: NATURE OF THE C ASE 1. This is an action for breach of contract stemming from an agreement to secure
certain rights to the dividends from a foreign financial instrument. Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC. entered into an agreement with Defendants DELBA P. CORREA and WORLD ADVISERS INC. to purchase certain rights to a Brazilian bond. Plaintiff satisfied all of its obligations under the agreement, including the tender of $502,500 for the purchase of those rights, but Defendants breached their obligations including the refusal to complete the transaction with Plaintiff. P ARTIES 2. Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC., (Plaintiff) is a Delaware corporation which has its
principal place of business in the state of Illinois.
3.
Defendant DELBA P. CORREA (Correa) is an individual who is a citizen of
Brazil. Correa does business in Illinois and her agent executed the contract at issue in Illinois. 4. Defendant WORLD ADVISERS INC. (World Advisers) is a foreign
corporation which does business in the United States. J URISDICTION & VENUE 5. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon the courts diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2). 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(d) in that
both Defendants are aliens. Venue is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to 1391(a) in that a substantial part of the events giving to the claim occurred in this judicial district. BACKGROUND 7. The subject matter of this lawsuit is a specific Brazilian Bond containing serial
number 192621, originally issued in January 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the K Series Brazilian Bond). The K Series Brazilian Bond, as estimated by the international trading
platform Euroclear, has an approximated exchange value of $2.4 billion. Defendant Correa owns 50% of the K Series Brazilian Bond at issue in this matter. 8. On or about June 26, 2012, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant Correa
through her agent, Gennday Danilov. Her agent had full power of attorney to market the K Series Brazilian Bond internationally for the benefit of generating a return, and had full authority to enter into the contract with Plaintiff. The parties agreed that the contract was effective as of June 19, 2011.
-2-
9.
Under that contract, Defendant Correa agreed to sell to Plaintiff certain rights she
had to dividends in the K Series Bond in exchange for a payment of $502,500. The parties agreed under the contract that the laws of the State of Illinois would govern. 10. Defendant Correa engaged Defendant World Advisers as her agent to assist with
the transaction. 11. Plaintiff similarly entered into an agreement with World Advisers to complete
certain tasks for the transaction. Under the this agreement, World Advisers promised to perform tasks including issuing any notices needed for the transaction, placing the bond in the proposed markets, re-registering the bond with the proper authorities, and obtaining any necessary documentation to close the K Series Brazilian Bond transaction. 12. The contract between Correa and Plaintiff provided that Plaintiff would receive
30% of the total benefits owed to Defendant Correa as generated by the K Series Brazilian Bond for the term of the parties contract. In turn, Plaintiff was obligated to pay 10% of the total benefits as commissions to the other financial participants in the transaction (so that Plaintiff would retain 20%). 13. Thereafter, Plaintiff fully satisfied its obligations under the contract and made the
$502,500 to World Advisers as the parties had agreed. Defendant Correa and Defendant World Advisers breached their respect contract by, among other things, refusing to complete the transaction with Plaintiff. COUNT I BREACH OF C ONTRACT AGAINST C ORREA SEEKING DAMAGES 14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 as though fully set
forth in this count. -3-
15.
Plaintiff and Defendant Correa entered into a contract on or about June 26, 2011,
through which Plaintiff agreed to buy, and Defendant Correa agreed to sell, certain rights to a K Series Brazilian Bond. 16. Plaintiff satisfied all of its obligations under the contract including providing a
payment for $502,500. 17. Plaintiff. 18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breach, Plaintiff has suffered Defendant breached the contract by refusing to complete the transaction with
damages in excess of $75,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC. requests that the court enter a judgment in its favor and against the Defendant Correa for an amount of damages in excess of $75,000 to be proven at trial, and for such further relief as the court deems just. COUNT II BREACH OF C ONTRACT AGAINST C ORREA SEEKING SPECIFIC P ERFORMANCE I N T HE ALTERNATIVE 19. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 as though fully set
forth in this count. 20. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract on or about June 26, 2011, through
which Plaintiff agreed to buy, and Defendant agreed to sell, certain rights to a K Series Brazilian Bond. 21. Plaintiff satisfied all of its obligations under the contract including providing a
payment for $502,500. 22. Defendant breached the contract by refusing to complete the transaction.
-4-
23. transaction. 24.
Plaintiff remains ready, willing, and able to close on the K Series Brazilian Bond
The K Series Brazilian Bond at issue in this complaint is a unique asset which
cannot be obtained elsewhere. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law and is entitled to seek specific performance. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC. requests that the court enter a judgment in its favor and against the Defendant Correa and order Defendant Correa to complete the transaction at issue, and for such further relief as the court deems just. COUNT III BREACH OF C ONTRACT AGAINST W ORLD ADVISERS SEEKING DAMAGES 25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 as though fully set
forth in this count. 26. Plaintiff and World Advisers entered into a contract whereby World Advisers
agreed to provide certain services to Plaintiff for a fee to complete the K Series Brazilian Bond transaction. 27. Plaintiff satisfied all of its obligations under the contract including providing the
fee required by World Advisers to complete the transaction. 28. Defendant World Advisers breached the contract by refusing to provide certain
services to complete the transaction. 29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breach, Plaintiff has suffered
damages in excess of $75,000.
-5-
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC. requests that the court enter a judgment in its favor and against the Defendant World Advisers for an amount of damages in excess of $75,000 to be proven at trial, and for such further relief as the court deems just. J URY DEMAND Plaintiff demands trial by jury for all issues so triable.
Date: August 30, 2012
Respectfully submitted, INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation
By:
/s/ Eugene E. Murphy, Jr. One of Its Attorneys
Eugene E. Murphy, Jr. (ARDC No. 6198863) John H. Hourihane, Jr. (ARDC No. 6256107) MURPHY & HOURIHANE, L.L.C. 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2550 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone (312) 202-3200
-6-
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois

In the Matter of InfrAegis, Inc.
District Judge Gary Feinerman
v.
Delba Correa , et al
Case No. 12-CV-6991

Designated Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
TRANSFER OF CASE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR A REASSIGNMENT I recommend to the Executive Committee that the above captioned case be reassigned by lot to another judge of this Court. The reasons for my recommendation are indicated on the reverse of this form.
________________________________
Judge Blanche M. Manning Date: Friday, August 31, 2012
ORDER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above captioned case be reassigned by lot to the calendar of an individual judge of this Court in accordance with the Rules. ENTER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
_____________________________________
Chief Judge James F. Holderman

Dated:Friday, August 31, 2012
District Reassignment - By Lot
- 28:294(b) I transfer this case to the Executive Committee for reassignment to another judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 294(b). The receiving judge will receive equalization credit.
EXCEPTIONS OR ADDITIONS:
District Reassignment - By Lot
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DELBA P. CORREA, an individual, and ) WORLD ADVISERS INC., a foreign corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2012 CV 6991
Judge Feinerman
MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC., by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) allowing Plaintiff to serve Defendant DELBA P. CORREA by alternate means. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states as follows. 1. This is an action for breach of contract stemming from an agreement to secure
certain rights to the dividends from an international financial instrument. 2. of Illinois. 3. Defendant DELBA P. CORREA is a citizen of Brazil, but does business in the On August 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed suit against defendants in the Northern District
United States. As set forth below, she currently is residing in Florida. 4. In September 2012, soon after the complaint was filed, Plaintiff began discussions
with a representative for Defendant DELBA P. CORREA about resolving the matter. The name of the representative was William M. Owens, and counsel for Plaintiffs received various email communications and telephone calls from Mr. Owens purporting to initiate settlement
discussions. Indeed, during the telephone conferences with Plaintiffs counsel, Mr. Owens represented numerous times that he was a lawyer representing Defendant DELBA P. CORREA. The communications did not resolve the case and instead were nothing more than a campaign to delay attempts at achieving service. (Attached as Exhibit 1 are the emails and attachments received from Mr. Owens.) 5. On October 16, 2012, because these discussions did not resolve the matter,
Plaintiff issued a waiver of service notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) to Defendant DELBA P. CORREA in Brazil and her business in Delaware. Neither Defendant DELBA P. CORREA nor her counsel responded to the request to waive service. 6. Plaintiff hired an investigator to confirm whether and where Defendant DELBA
P. CORREA was residing in the United States. The investigator confirmed that Defendant DELBA P. CORREA had been conducting business in Florida, where her lawyer is located, and was residing in Florida as well in a house located at 12225 N.W. 71st Street, Parkland, FL 33076. 7. As a result, on November 21, 2012, Plaintiff issued summons to the Florida
address in an effort to serve Defendant DELBA P. CORREA individually there. Service was unsuccessful despite six different attempts. (See Servicer Affidavit attached as Exhibit 2.) The investigator reported that the individual who answered the door claimed that Defendant DELBA P. CORREA no longer lived with them and that they did not have a forwarding address. 8. Based on the communications had between Plaintiffs counsel and the
representative for Defendant DELBA P. CORREA, it is clear that the Defendant has actual notice of this action. The investigator has also made it clear that Defendant DELBA P.
CORREA still resides at the Florida address.
-2-
9.
However, since actual notice is not sufficient under Rule 4, and since serving
process by leaving process with the individual who answered the door at the Florida address could leave a question regarding proper service, Plaintiff moves this Court to authorize an alternative means to definitively effect service upon Defendant DELBA P. CORREA. 10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that service may be accomplished
either pursuant to the State laws in which the District Court sits or pursuant to the State laws in which the service is to be accomplished. Rule 4(e)(1). 11. Plaintiff seeks an order allowing alternative service under Illinois law pursuant to
735 ILCS 5/2-203.1. Section 2-203.1 provides that an Illinois court may allow alternate means of service consistent with due process where service is impractical under sub-sections (1) and (2) of 5/2-203(a): If service upon an individual defendant is impractical under items (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of Section 2-203, the plaintiff may move, without notice, that the court enter an order directing a comparable method of service. The motion shall be accompanied with an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the investigation made to determine the whereabouts of the defendant and the reasons why service is impractical under items (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of Section 2-203, including a specific statement showing that a diligent inquiry as to the location of the individual defendant was made and reasonable efforts to make service have been unsuccessful. The court may order service to be made in any manner consistent with due process. 12. Attached is an affidavit from the investigator stating the nature and extent of the
investigation made to determine the whereabouts of Defendant DELBA P. CORREA. (A copy of the Thomas P. Reynolds Affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.) In addition, the
investigator states that personal and abode service was impractical due to the fact that the investigator confirmed the proper location, that the investigator made six separate attempts, and
-3-
that the individual who answered at the Florida address was assisting in concealing Defendants whereabouts. 13. Plaintiff seeks an order from this court to allow service in another manner
consistent with due process and Illinois law. Illinois law allows a party to serve process by publication for actions affecting property or status pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-206. Under those circumstances, the clerk of the court shall cause publication to be made in some newspaper published in the county in which the action is pending. Though this matter does not involve real property, publication is a manner consistent with due process and Illinois law. As applied here, Plaintiff would request publication in the Florida county of the aforementioned Florida address. 14. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an order allowing Plaintiff to serve
Defendant DELBA P. CORREA consistent with due process by any or all of the following means: (1) by leaving process at the aforementioned Florida address with the individual who answered; (2) by FedEx to Defendant Correas Brazilian address and Florida address; (3) by FedEx to Correas counsel/representative in Florida; (4) by certified mail to Correas Brazilian address and Florida address; (5) by certified mail to Correas counsel/representative in Florida; (6) by publication in Illinois and Florida; and/or (7) by publication in Brazil in the area which serves Defendant Correas home address. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC., respectfully requests that the Court enter an order allowing Plaintiff to serve Defendant DELBA P. CORREA by alternative means, and award any other relief that is just.
Date: December 4, 2012
Respectfully submitted, INFRAEGIS, INC. -4-
By: Eugene E. Murphy, Jr. (ARDC No. 6198863) John H. Hourihane, Jr. (ARDC No. 6256107) MURPHY & HOURIHANE, L.L.C. 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2550 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone (312) 202-3200
/s/ Eugene E. Murphy, Jr.
-5-
Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DELBA P. CORREA, and individual, and ) WORLD ADVISERS INC., a foreign corporation, ) ) Defendants. )
Case No. 12 CV 6991
Judge Feinerman
NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 12, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., we will appear before the Honorable Judge Gary Feinerman, or any judge sitting in his stead, in Room 1725 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and shall then and there present PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE, a copy of which is hereby served upon you. Dated: December 5, 2012 Respectfully submitted, INFRAEGIS, INC.
By: /s/ Eugene E. Murphy, Jr. One of its Attorneys
Eugene E. Murphy, Jr. (ARDC No. 6198863) John N. Hourihane, Jr. (ARDC No. 6256107) MURPHY & HOURIHANE, L.L.C. 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2550 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Phone (312) 202-3200
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3 Eastern Division InfrAegis, Inc. Plaintiff, v. Delba P Correa, et al. Defendant. Case No.: 1:12cv06991 Honorable Gary Feinerman
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, December 12, 2012: MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman: Motion hearing held. Motion by plaintiffs for alternative service [7] granted. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant Delba Correa: (1) by serving process at 1225 N.W. 71st Street, Parkland, FL 33076, with the individual who previously spoke with the process server; (2) by FedEx and certified mail to the aforementioned Florida address; (3) by FedEx and certified mail to Correas counsel/representative, William M. Owens; (4) by FedEx to Correa's Brazil address; and (5) by publication in Illinois and Florida, and also in Brazil in the area that serves Correas Brazilian home address. The time for serving Defendants is extended to 2/1/2013, pursuant to Rule 4(m). Status hearing is set for 2/1/2013 at 9:00 a.m Mailed notice(lcw, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information. For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, December 17, 2012: MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman: Status hearing scheduled for 2/1/2013 [9] is stricken and reset for 2/4/2013 at 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice.(jlj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DELBA P. CORREA, an individual, and ) WORLD ADVISERS INC., a foreign corporation, ) ) Defendants. )
Case No. 12 CV 6991
Judge Feinerman
NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 31, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., we will appear before the Honorable Judge Gary Feinerman, or any judge sitting in his stead, in Room 2125 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and shall then and there present PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT, a copy of which is hereby served upon you. Dated: January 18, 2013 Respectfully submitted, INFRAEGIS, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this Motion was filed with the Court through the Courts ECF electronic filing system. Counsel served the following Defendant DELBA P. CORREA by the stated methods:
Via FedEx To Brazil Ms. Delba Correa SQN 316 BLOCO K AP 222 BRASILIA, DF 70775 BR
Via FedEx to Representative Mr. William M. Owens 270 N. El Camino Real, F288 Encinitas, CA 92024
/s/
Eugene E. Murphy, Jr.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, January 31, 2013: MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default [11] is granted. Default is entered against Delba P. Correa pursuant to Rule 55(a). Status hearing set for 2/26/2013 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff informed the court that a motion for default judgment will be filed against Defendant Delba P. Correa. At least ten days before the date of presentment, Plaintiff shall serve Delba P. Correa (via a means that allows for tracking of delivery) with a copy of this order, a copy of the notice of motion for default judgment, and a copy of the motion and all attachments. Defendant Delba P. Correa is cautioned that failure to appear at the 2/26/2013 hearing in this case may result in the entry of default judgment and the assessment of money damages. Status hearing scheduled for 2/4/2013 [10] is stricken. Mailed notice.(jlj)
Case No. 2012 CV 6991
Judge Feinerman
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT DELBA P. CORREA AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Plaintiff, INFRAEGIS, INC., by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) and this Courts January 31, 2013 minute entry (Doc. 13) to enter a default judgment against Defendant Delba P. Correa. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states as follows: BACKGROUND 1. On August 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendants Delba P.
Correa and World Advisers Inc. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs complaint alleges three claims based on Defendants breach of an agreement to sell rights to a Brazilian bond. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff tendered $502,500 in satisfaction of its obligations under the agreement, and Defendants breached their obligations by refusing to complete the transaction. (Doc. 1, Complaint 1.) (See Affidavit of Gregory E. Webb attached hereto as Exhibit A.) 2. Defendant Delba P. Correa owns a 50% interest in a K Series Brazilian Bond
containing serial number 192621, originally issued in January 1970 (the Bond). (Doc. 1, Complaint 7.) On or about June 26, 2011, Plaintiff entered into a contract (the Agreement)
with Defendant Correa whereby Plaintiff purchased 30% of Correas interest in the Bond. (Doc. 1, Complaint 8, 12.) The Agreement provided that Defendants would place the Bond in a market and on a trading platform whereby the Bond could be monetized to effectuate dividend distributions. (Doc. 1, Complaint 11.) Plaintiff would then receive 30% of the total benefits owed to Defendant Correa from the Bond for the term of the parties contract, which was one year and one month. (Doc. 1, Complaint 12.) Defendants, however, never placed the Bond in a trading market. (Doc. 1, Complaint 13.) 3. Due to attempts by Defendant Correa to avoid service, on December 4, 2012,
Plaintiff filed a motion for alternative service. (Doc. 7.) On December 12, 2012, the Court granted the motion for alternative service and ordered that Plaintiff may serve Defendant Correa through a variety of means. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff implemented the means without delay. Pursuant to the Courts order, Plaintiff took the following actions to effectuate service: (a) On December 12, 2012, Plaintiffs counsel sent a copy of the summons and
complaint to Defendant Correas representative, William M. Owens, an attorney, by certified mail. (A copy of the certified mail proof of delivery is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) (b) On December 12, 2012, Plaintiffs counsel sent a copy of the summons and Mr.
complaint to Defendant Correas representative, William M. Owens, by email.
Owens received and responded to the email. (Copies of the emails are attached hereto as Exhibit C.) (c) On December 17, 2012, Plaintiffs counsel delivered copies of the summons and
complaint to Defendant Correas address in Brazil via Federal Express. (A copy of the FedEx delivery report is attached hereto as Exhibit D.)
(d)
On January 18, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel sent a copy of the summons and
complaint to 12225 N.W. 71st Street, Parkland, FL 33076 by Federal Express. (A copy of the FedEx invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit E.) (e) Plaintiffs counsel published notice of this suit in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
for three consecutive weeks beginning January 21, 2013. (Copies of the notice and receipt are attached hereto as Exhibit F.) (f) Plaintiffs counsel published notice of this matter in the Broward Daily Business
Review, the newspaper that serves the Parkland, Florida community, in three separate publications beginning January 24, 2013. (A copy of the notice is attached hereto as Exhibit G.) (g) Plaintiff served notice by publication in the Brazilian newspaper Correio
Braziliense, a newspaper widely circulated in the hometown of Defendant Correa. The newspaper published the notice two times in both English and Portuguese. (A copy of the notice published in Correio Braziliense is attached hereto as Exhibit H.) 4. Despite all of the notifications to Defendant Correa, she has not appeared,
answered, or otherwise pleaded in this case. 5. Accordingly, on January 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed its motion for default. (Doc.
11.) The motion sets forth how process was served and how Plaintiff accomplished actual notice to Defendant Correa. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff presented the motion for default on January 31, 2013. (Doc. 11.) 6. On January 31, 2012, this Court granted Plaintiffs motion for default and entered
an order of default against Defendant Correa. (Doc 13.) 7. Following the hearing on January 31, 2013, Plaintiff took the following actions:
(a)
On February 8, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel served a copy of the January 31, 2013
order by Federal Express to Defendant Correas address in Brazil, Defendant Correas representative William M. Owens, and Defendant Correas Florida address. (Copies of the FedEx invoices are attached hereto as Exhibit I.) The recipient at the Brazilian address refused to accept delivery. (See Exhibit I.) (b) Plaintiffs counsel emailed a copy of the January 31, 2013 order to Defendant
Correa and Defendant Correas representative William M. Owens. (Copies of the emails are attached hereto as Exhibit J.) (c) On February 15, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel will serve a copy of the January 31,
2013 order, Plaintiffs motion for default and incorporated memorandum, and notice of the motion for default by FedEx to Defendant Correas address in Brazil, Defendant Correas representative William M. Owens, and Defendant Correas Florida address. (d) On February 15, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel will email a copy of the January 31,
2013 order, Plaintiffs motion for default and incorporated memorandum, and notice of the motion for default to Defendant Correa and Defendant Correas representative William M. Owens. ARGUMENT 8. As a general rule, a default judgment establishes, as a matter of law, that
defendants are liable to plaintiff as to each cause of action alleged in the Complaint. United States v. DiMucci, 879 F.2d 1488, 1497 (7th Cir. 1989). Upon a default, the well-pleaded allegations of a complaint are taken as true. Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Products, Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983). Unless the amount claimed is liquidated, the amount of damages is ordinarily determined through hearing or as set forth in affidavits. Id.
9.
Through this motion, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court awarding Plaintiff
the equitable relief it is entitled under the Agreement. In Count II of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim for breach of contract and seeks specific performance so that Plaintiff can place the Bond on a trading platform and thereafter obtain the rights to the Bond as contemplated by the Agreement. 10. Under the Agreement, Defendant Correa agreed to sell Plaintiff a percentage of
her interest in the Bond in exchange for a payment of $500,000. (Doc. 1, Complaint 9.) Plaintiff fully satisfied its obligations under the Agreement and made the $500,000 payment. (Doc. 1, Complaint 13.) Plaintiff also made a payment of $2,500 to compensate services by the escrow agent for the $500,000. (Copies of the invoices from TD Bank, N.A., the bank to which Plaintiff transferred the funds to satisfy its obligation under the Agreement, are attached hereto as Exhibit K.) Defendants failed to perform as required pursuant to the Agreement. (Doc. Complaint 1.) 11. Defendant Correa has defaulted in this matter in that: (a) She did not appear
before the Court on any matters with this case; (b) She did not answer or otherwise plead to the complaint; and (c) She did not appear for the entry of default. 12. 13. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks a default judgment against Defendant Correa. The Bond is a unique asset that cannot be obtained elsewhere. (Doc. 1,
Complaint 24.) Accordingly, Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law, which warrants the equitable relief Plaintiff seeks herein. 14. Defendant Correa is not in physical possession of the Bond. On information and
belief, the Bond is presently held in Luxembourg by JP Morgan Chase as custodian.
15.
To obtain the dividend proceeds from the Bond, the Bond must be registered and
placed on a trading platform. The placement of the Bond onto a platform was an obligation required of Defendants under the Agreement that Defendants failed to perform. Complaint 13, 17.) 16. As a result, Plaintiff seeks a default judgment that gives Plaintiff legal title and (Doc. 1,
possession of the Bond so that Plaintiff can register and place the Bond on a trading platform and receive a 30% ownership interest in the resulting dividends. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, INFRAEGIS, INC., respectfully requests that the Court enter a default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) that gives Plaintiff legal title and possession of the Bond for the purpose of registering and placing the Bond on an appropriate trading platform, and assigning to Plaintiff a 30% ownership interest in the resulting dividends. Date: February 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted, INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation
By:
/s/ Eugene E. Murphy, Jr. One of Its Attorneys
Case No. 12 CV 6991
Judge Feinerman
NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 26, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., we will appear before the Honorable Judge Gary Feinerman, or any judge sitting in his stead, in Room 2125 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and shall then and there present PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, a copy of which is hereby served upon you. Dated: February 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted, INFRAEGIS, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this Motion was filed with the Court through the Courts ECF electronic filing system. Counsel served the following Defendant DELBA P. CORREA by the following methods:
Via FedEx To Brazil Ms. Delba Correa SQN 316 BLOCO K AP 222 BRASILIA, DF 70775 BR
Via FedEx to Representative Mr. William M. Owens 270 N. El Camino Real, F288 Encinitas, CA 92024
/s/
Eugene E. Murphy, Jr.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, February 26, 2013: MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman:Status hearing held and continued to 3/19/2013 at 9:00 a.m. Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendant Delba P. Correa [14] is granted. By 3/12/2013, Plaintiff shall submit a proposed judgment order as to Defendant Correa, and also shall file a pleading indicating whether it will dismiss without prejudice its claims against Defendant World Advisers Inc.Mailed notice.(jlj)

Infraegis Vs Delba P Correa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infraegis Vs Delba P Correa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infraegis Vs Delba P Correa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

principal place of business in the state of Illinois.

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2

Defendant DELBA P. CORREA (Correa) is an individual who is a citizen of

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3

forth in this count. -3-

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5

23. transaction. 24.

damages in excess of $75,000.

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6

Date: August 30, 2012

Respectfully submitted, INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation

/s/ Eugene E. Murphy, Jr. One of Its Attorneys

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 2 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:7

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 3 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:8

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 4 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:9

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 5 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:10

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 6 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:11

United States District Court Northern District of Illinois

Case No. 12-CV-6991

Chief Judge James F. Holderman

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 6 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:12

District Reassignment - By Lot

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:13

Case No. 2012 CV 6991

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:14

CORREA still resides at the Florida address.

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:15

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:16

Date: December 4, 2012

Respectfully submitted, INFRAEGIS, INC. -4-

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:17

/s/ Eugene E. Murphy, Jr.

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:18

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:19

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:20

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:21

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:22

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:23

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:24

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:25

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:26

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:27

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:28

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:29

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:30

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:31

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:32

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:33

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:34

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:35

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:36

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:37

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:38

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:39

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:40

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:41

Case: 1:12-cv-06991 Document #: 7-1 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:42