Infraegis vs Delba P Correa

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. vs. ) ) DELBA P. CORREA, an Individual, and ) JURY DEMANDED WORLD ADVISERS INC., a foreign corporation, ) ) Defendants. )

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 CASE

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.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff INFRAEGIS, INC., (“Plaintiff”) is a Delaware corporation which has its

principal place of business in the state of Illinois.

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

-2-

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.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

5. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon the court’s 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.


-3-

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 CONTRACT AGAINST CORREA SEEKING DAMAGES

14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 as though fully set

forth in this count.


-4-

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. Defendant breached the contract by refusing to complete the transaction with

Plaintiff.

18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered

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 CONTRACT AGAINST CORREA SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN THE ALTERNATIVE



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.


-5-

23. Plaintiff remains ready, willing, and able to close on the K Series Brazilian Bond

transaction.

24. 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.


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 CONTRACT AGAINST WORLD ADVISERS SEEKING DAMAGES



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 Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered

damages in excess of $75,000.


-6-


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.

JURY 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


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

Designated Magistrate JudgeArlander Keys

District Judge Gary Feinerman

Dated:Friday, August 31, 2012Dated:Friday, August 31, 2012

United States District CourtNorthern District of Illinois

In the Matter of

InfrAegis, Inc.

v. Case No. 12-CV-6991

Delba Correa , et al

TRANSFER OF CASE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEFOR A REASSIGNMENT

I recommend to the Executive Committee that the above captioned case be reassigned by lotto another judge of this Court. The reasons for my recommendation are indicated on the reverseof this form.

________________________________

Date: Friday, August 31, 2012

Judge Blanche M. Manning

ORDER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above captioned case be reassigned by lot to the calendarof an individual judge of this Court in accordance with the Rules.

ENTER

FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

_____________________________________

Chief Judge James F. Holderman

District Reassignment - By Lot


- 28:294(b) I transfer this case to the Executive Committee for reassignment to another judge pursuant tothe 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 INFRAEGIS, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 2012 CV 6991 vs. ) ) DELBA P. CORREA, an individual, and ) Judge Feinerman WORLD ADVISERS INC., a foreign corporation, ) ) Defendants. )

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. On August 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed suit against defendants in the Northern District

of Illinois.

3. Defendant DELBA P. CORREA is a citizen of Brazil, but does business in the

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


-2-

discussions. Indeed, during the telephone conferences with Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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.


-3-

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


-4-

that the individual who answered at the Florida address was assisting in concealing Defendant’s

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 Correa’s Brazilian address and Florida address; (3) by

FedEx to Correa’s counsel/representative in Florida; (4) by certified mail to Correa’s Brazilian

address and Florida address; (5) by certified mail to Correa’s counsel/representative in Florida;

(6) by publication in Illinois and Florida; and/or (7) by publication in Brazil in the area which

serves Defendant Correa’s 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.


-5-

By: /s/ Eugene E. Murphy, Jr. 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


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, ) Case No. 12 CV 6991

)

vs. )

) Judge Feinerman

DELBA P. CORREA, and individual, and )

WORLD ADVISERS INC., a foreign corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

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 PLAINTIFF’S 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 COURTFOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

InfrAegis, Inc.Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−06991Honorable Gary Feinerman

Delba P Correa, et al.Defendant.

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. Motionby plaintiffs for alternative service [7] granted. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant DelbaCorrea: (1) by serving process at 1225 N.W. 71st Street, Parkland, FL 33076, with theindividual who previously spoke with the process server; (2) by FedEx and certified mailto the aforementioned Florida address; (3) by FedEx and certified mail to Correascounsel/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 CorreasBrazilian 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 ofCivil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It wasgenerated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil andcriminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, pleaserefer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit ourweb site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.



Eastern Division





This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, December 17, 2012:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman: Status hearing scheduled for2/1/2013 [9] is stricken and re−set for 2/4/2013 at 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice.(jlj)






EASTERN DIVISION


)


)

vs. )

) Judge Feinerman

DELBA P. CORREA, an individual, and )


)

Defendants. )

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 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT, a copy of which is hereby served

upon you.

Dated: January 18, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

INFRAEGIS, INC.








Phone (312) 202-3200


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this Motion was filed with the Court through the Court’s 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.



Eastern Division





This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, January 31, 2013:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motion hearing held. Plaintiff'smotion for entry of default [11] is granted. Default is entered against Delba P. Correapursuant to Rule 55(a). Status hearing set for 2/26/2013 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff informed thecourt 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 (viaa means that allows for tracking of delivery) with a copy of this order, a copy of the noticeof motion for default judgment, and a copy of the motion and all attachments. DefendantDelba P. Correa is cautioned that failure to appear at the 2/26/2013 hearing in this casemay result in the entry of default judgment and the assessment of money damages. Statushearing scheduled for 2/4/2013 [10] is stricken. Mailed notice.(jlj)






EASTERN DIVISION


)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 2012 CV 6991

vs. )

)

DELBA P. CORREA, an individual, and ) Judge Feinerman


)

Defendants. )

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 Court’s 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.) Plaintiff’s 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”)


2

with Defendant Correa whereby Plaintiff purchased 30% of Correa’s 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 Court’s order, Plaintiff took the following actions to effectuate service:

(a) On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a copy of the summons and

complaint to Defendant Correa’s 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, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a copy of the summons and

complaint to Defendant Correa’s representative, William M. Owens, by email. Mr.

Owens received and responded to the email. (Copies of the emails are attached hereto as

Exhibit C.)

(c) On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel delivered copies of the summons and

complaint to Defendant Correa’s address in Brazil via Federal Express. (A copy of the

FedEx delivery report is attached hereto as Exhibit D.)


3

(d) On January 18, 2013, Plaintiff’s 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) Plaintiff’s 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) Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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:


4

(a) On February 8, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel served a copy of the January 31, 2013

order by Federal Express to Defendant Correa’s address in Brazil, Defendant Correa’s

representative William M. Owens, and Defendant Correa’s 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) Plaintiff’s counsel emailed a copy of the January 31, 2013 order to Defendant

Correa and Defendant Correa’s representative William M. Owens. (Copies of the emails

are attached hereto as Exhibit J.)

(c) On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel will serve a copy of the January 31,

2013 order, Plaintiff’s motion for default and incorporated memorandum, and notice of

the motion for default by FedEx to Defendant Correa’s address in Brazil, Defendant

Correa’s representative William M. Owens, and Defendant Correa’s Florida address.

(d) On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel will email a copy of the January 31,

2013 order, Plaintiff’s motion for default and incorporated memorandum, and notice of

the motion for default to Defendant Correa and Defendant Correa’s 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.


5

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. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks a default judgment against Defendant Correa.

13. 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.


6

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. (Doc. 1,

Complaint ¶¶ 13, 17.)

16. As a result, Plaintiff seeks a default judgment that gives Plaintiff legal title and

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


One of Its Attorneys






Phone (312) 202-3200




EASTERN DIVISION


)


)

vs. )

) Judge Feinerman

DELBA P. CORREA, an individual, and )


)

Defendants. )

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 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, a copy of which is hereby

served upon you.

Dated: February 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

INFRAEGIS, INC.








Phone (312) 202-3200


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this Motion was filed with the Court through the Court’s 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.



Eastern Division





This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, February 26, 2013:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman:Status hearing held andcontinued to 3/19/2013 at 9:00 a.m. Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on therecord, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendant Delba P. Correa [14] isgranted. By 3/12/2013, Plaintiff shall submit a proposed judgment order as to DefendantCorrea, and also shall file a pleading indicating whether it will dismiss without prejudiceits claims against Defendant World Advisers Inc.Mailed notice.(jlj)




Infraegis vs Delba P Correa

Documents

Transcript of Infraegis vs Delba P Correa