EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim (00634648)

Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 1 of 356
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 09-CIV-20526-GOLD/MCALILEY
JOHN ALEXA, an individual; ELSA ALLRED,

an individual; STEVEN ANDERSON, an
individual; SHERI ANDERSON, an individual;
JOANN ANTRIM, an individual; KERRY
ARNOLD, an individual; JANA ARNOLD, an
individual; JUAN ARRENDONDO, an
individual; GARTH ATWOOD, an individual;
ARDITH ATWOOD, an individual; LAURA
BAKER, an individual; ANNETTE BARNETT,
an individual; DUANE BARNEY, an
individual; LAURA ANN OLSEN BARNEY,
an individual; JESSE BEAL, an individual;
KEVIN BELL, an individual; ISABELLE
BERROWS, an individual; STEPHEN
BIDDULPH, an individual; ALVIN BRANDT,
an individual; IRENE BRANDT, an individual;
PATRICIA LYNNE BROGAN, individual;
JOHN BROOKMAN, an individual; DAWNA
BROWER, an individual; RALPH BROWER,
an individual; LUIS BUSTOS, an individual;
BLANCA BUSTOS, an individual; SPENCER
CALL, an individual; MICHAEL CALLAHAN,
an individual; FRANCISCO CARMONA, an
individual; ANTONIO CARRENO, an
individual; FEBRONIA CARRENO, an
individual; GARY CASASSA, an individual;
ROBERT GARCIA CEJA, an individual; JOSE
CENDEJAS, an individual; KERRY
CHRISTENSEN, an individual; KATHIE
CHRISTENSEN, an individual; MICHAEL
CONNER, an individual; MARIA CONNER,
an individual; DARREN COSSEY, an
individual; JENNIFER COSSEY, an individual;
KATHY COX, an individual; ELEANOR
CRAWFORD, an individual; BRENT
CROMER, an individual; NANCY DIELI, an
individual; PAUL DUNN, an individual;
JONATHAN ELBOM, an individual; RAMIRO
EFRAIN, individual; SILVA BARRERA, an
Individual; DEANNA FAENZI-GLASS, an
1
LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTER, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 • TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
individual; JOANNE FALKOWSKI, an

individual; CHARLES FELTON, an individual;
MARIA FERNANDEZ, an individual; ALICE
FITZWATER, an individual; GERTRUDE
FLOOD, an individual; KERRY FLYNN, an
individual; THOMAS FREESE, an individual,
JOHN GARDINER, an individual; DIANE
GARDINER, an individual; VICTOR GIRON-
ALVAREZ, an individual; ALBINO
GONZALEZ, an individual; ANA
GONZALEZ, an individual; JOSE GURROLA,
an individual; SONIA GURROLA, an
individual; BRIAN HALL, an individual;
BRUCE HALL, an individual; TYLER HALL,
an individual; RAYMOND HANDY, an
individual; MEGHAN HANDY, an individual;
CLAYTON HANSEN, an individual; ALYSON
HANSEN, an individual; KAREN HANSEN,
an individual; THOMAS HARP, an individual;
RICK HAWKER, an individual; DENNIS
HAWORTH, an individual; GARY HOUSE, an
individual; TRENT HUDSON, an individual;
VALERIE HUDSON, an individual; GILBERT
IRUEGAS, an individual; CHERYL JACKS, an
individual; KAY LYNN JACOBSON, an
individual; ALAN JENKINS, an individual;
GILBERT JING, an individual; FRANK
JUNIO, an individual; RHONDA JUNIO, an
individual; JOHN KASSEL, an individual;
PATRICIA KASSEL, an individual; JOHN
KAY, an individual; VERNON KILLEN, an
individual; SEAN KIRBY, an individual;
CAROL KITT, an individual; ROBERT KITT,
an individual; WARRENETTA LANE, an
individual; JAMES LAWRENCE, an
individual; WENDY LAWRENCE, an
individual; RICHARD LEE, an individual;
MAY LEE, an individual; WAYLAND LEE, an
individual; BARBARA LEWIS, an individual;
JOSE MANUEL LEYVA AQUILAR, an
individual; EARL LINEBAUGH, an individual;
RITA LINEBAUGH, an individual; ED
LOOPER, an individual; FINDENCIO LOPEZ,
an individual; TIBURCIO LOPEZ, an
individual; ERIKA LOPEZ, an individual;
DOUGLAS MADSEN, an individual;,
2
CHERYL MADSEN, an individual; ISMAEL

MANZO ALVAREZ, an individual; ANGEL
MARAVILLA, an individual; PIEDAD
MARAVILLA, an individual; ANTHONY
MARTIN, an individual; OZZIE MARTIN, JR.,
an individual; WILLIAM MATZ, an individual;
ERICA MATZ, an individual; KYLE
MCARTHUR, an individual, ALISA
KRINSKY, an individual, CHERYL MEYERYOUNG,
an individual, JOSE MILLAN, an
individual, EMMA MILLAN, an individual,
KAREL MOJZIS, an individual, SHIRLEY
MOORE, an individual, THOMAS
MUSGROVE, an individual, DON MYRES, an
individual, SHIRLEY MYRES, an individual,
SERGIO NAVARRO, an individual, ROSA
NAVARRO, an individual; DANIEL
NIELSON, an individual; WALTER
NEWBAUM, an individual; PAM NEWBAUM,
an individual; ROBERTA O’BRION, an
individual; RUTH O’HAGAN, an individual;
JUAN OLVERA-QUIJAS, an individual;
ALBERTO OROZCO, an individual; NORMA
OROZCO, an individual; LOREDANA ORTIZ,
an individual; MATTHEW PARENTE, an
individual; JOSE PENA, an individual;
RAFAELA PENA, an individual; RAFAELA
GUADALUPE PEREZ, an individual; FELIPE
PEREZ, and individual, MARIA PEREZ, an
individual MILTON PETTIT, an individual;
NOLAN PHILLIPS, an individual; JENNIE
PHILLIPS, an individual; CHARLES
PUCKETT, an individual; RANDY
PULLMAN, an individual; KEVIN RAINEY,
an individual; CINDY RAINEY, an individual;
LOWELL RICE, an individual; LINDA RICE,
an individual; CHARLYN ROBERTS, an
individual; ABEL ROCHA, an individual;
JUAN RODRIQUEZ, JR., an individual;
JUDITH ROGERS, an individual; JOE
ROSSITER, an individual; IMA ROSSITER, an
individual; JEAN ROSSITER, an individual;
JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ,, an individual;
SAMUEL SANCHEZ, an individual; MIGUEL
SILVA MEZA, an individual; ANGELA
SIMAS, an individual; DANOU SISA-AT, an
3
individual; JARED SKELTON, an individual;

JENNY SKELTON, an individual; GLORIA
SMITH, an individual; JIM SNIEZKO, an
individual; JAMES SOLTIS, an individual;
ROSALIND SOLTIS, an individual;
STANTON SOUTHWICK, an individual; JILL
SOUTHWICK, an individual; MARTHA
SPENCE an individual; WILLIAM
SUBLETTE, an individual; LORI SUBLETTE,
an individual; SAM SYLIPHONE, an
individual; BILL TABBERT, an individual;
LINDA TABBERT, an individual;
KATHLEEN TANNER, an individual; MARIA
TAPIA, an individual; BRUCE THOMAS, an
individual; CHERYL THOMAS, an individual;
GARY THOMPSON, an individual; KERRY
THOMPSON, an individual; STEVE
THOMPSON, an individual; LUIS TORRES,
an individual; MARIA TORRES, an individual;
KENNY TRAN, an individual; CHRISTOL
TRAN, an individual; PAULINE TRAUB, an
individual; RUTH VALDEZ, an individual;
JOHN VERKAIK, an individual; JENNIFER
VERKAIK, an individual; MARCELA
VILLAGOMEZ, an individual; KENNETH
WALLACE, an individual; KAMILLE
WALLACE, an individual; ROLF WALPOLE,
an individual, TANGIE WALPOLE, an
individual, JOHN WEBB, an individual;
TERRY WEBB, an individual; HARVEY
WEILER, an individual; MARLENE WEILER,
an individual; KAY WILLIAMS, an individual;
MARY LEE WILLIAMS, an individual;
SANDRA WIN, an individual; JEFFREY
WOLF, an individual; LOLITA WOLF, an
individual; KOK KYAN WONG, an individual;
STEVEN YOUNG, an individual; REBECCA
YOUNG, an individual; MARTIN ZAMUDIO,
an individual; ESTELA ZAMUDIO, an
individual; SUSAN ZANAYED, an individual;
Plaintiffs,
v.
4
EMI RESORTS, INC., a foreign corporation;

EMI SUN VILLAGE, INC., a foreign
corporation; HSV HOTELES DE
OPERADORA,S.A., f/k/a EMI RESORTS
MANAGEMENT, S.A., a foreign corporation;
EMI RESORTS MANAGEMENT (S.V.G.),
INC., a foreign corporation; EMI COFRESI
DEVELOPMENTS, INC. a/k/a COFRESI
DEVELOPMENTS, INC., a foreign
corporation; KAHEBRAM, S.A., a foreign
corporation; ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
a/k/a EMI MANAGEMENT,INC., a foreign
corporation; INVERSIONES AVIATI, S.A., a
foreign corporation; SUN VILLAGE JUAN
DOLIO, INC., a foreign corporation;
PROMOTORA XARA, S.A., a foreign
corporation; ELLIOTT MICHES HOLDINGS,
INC., a foreign corporation; INVERSIONES
YUBASO, S.A., a foreign corporation;
INMOBILIARIA LIRIOS DEL TROPICO,
S.A., a foreign corporation; INMOBILIARIA
CANADAIGUA, S.A., a foreign corporation;
HSV HOLDINGS, S.A., a foreign corporation;
DESARROLLOS MIRADOR COFRESI, S.A.,
a foreign corporation; TENEDORA HSV [BP],
S.A., a foreign corporation; VILLA SANTA
PONCA, S.A., a foreign corporation; DCS
DOMINICAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,
S.A., a foreign corporation; ELLIOTT
REGENT HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign
corporation; ELLIOTT TOSCANA
HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation;
LANDMARK LENDING CORPORATION, a
foreign corporation, 408 CUMBERLAND
HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation,
BERTUS MANAGEMENT, INC., a foreign
corporation, ORANGEVILLE RESERVATION
SERVICES, LTD., a California corporation,
CCW DOMINICANA, S.A., a foreign
corporation; MPS LTD., S.A., a foreign
corporation; COFRESCO HOLDINGS, INC., a
foreign corporation; IMMOBILIARIA
MONCEY, S.A., a foreign corporation;
CELLWAVE NETWORKS, LTD., a foreign
corporation, WWIN INTERNATIONAL LTD.,
a foreign corporation; MELLESINO C. POR A.,
5
a foreign corporation; TENEDORA WESSEX

DOMINICANA, S.A., a foreign corporation;
SUN VILLAGE CONTRUCCIONES, S.A., a
foreign corporation; SUN VILLAGE JD
HOLDING, INC., a Delaware corporation;
1211766 ALBERTA LTD., a foreign
corporation; TRIPALMS REAL ESTATE INC.,
a foreign corporation; OCEAN PALMS REAL
ESTATE (SVG) INC., a, foreign corporation;
DE MARCHENA KALUCHE &
ASOCIADOS, a foreign corporation;
ENRIQUE DE MARCHENA, an individual;
VICTOR CABRAL, an individual;
N.W.N.GROUP, LLC, a/k/a NET WEALTH
NAVIGATORS, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability, company, MICHAEL LAWTER, an
individual; TIPPY TAN LAWTER, an
individual; FREDERICK ELLIOTT, an
individual; and DEREK ELLIOTT, an
individual,1
Defendants.
________________________________________
CORPORATE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
EMI Resorts Inc., EMI Sun Village Inc., HSV Operadora de Hoteles, S.A., EMI Resorts
Management, S.A., EMI Resorts (S.V.G.) Inc., EMI Cofresi Developments Inc., Sun Village
Juan Dolio Inc., Promotora Xara, S.A., Elliott Miches Holdings Inc., Inversiones Yubaso, S.A.,
Inmobiliaria Lirios Del Tropico, S.A., Inmobiliaria Canadaigua, S.A., HSV Holdings, S.A.,
Desarrollos Mirador Cofresi, S.A., Tenedora HSV [B.P.], S.A., Villa Santa Ponca, S.A., Bertus
1
Notwithstanding this Court's admonishment that the name of a corporation controls (with respect to the entry of
defaults) and not a corporation's alleged f/k/a or a/k/a [D.E. 835], Plaintiffs have once again attempted to link
entities without any proof that such entities are, in fact, "also known as" another entity. Accordingly, the Corporate
Defendants reject and disavow any such linkage of entities with the term "a/k/a" in the absence of proof of an
established relationship between the linked entities. Specifically, Plaintiffs link the following: (1) EMI COFRESI
DEVELOPMENTS, INC. a/k/a COFRESI DEVELOPMENTS, INC., a foreign corporation; (2) ELLIOTT
MANAGEMENT, INC., a/k/a EMI MANAGEMENT,INC., a foreign corporation; (3) N.W.N.GROUP, LLC, a/k/a
NET WEALTH NAVIGATORS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability, company; and (4) HSV HOTELES
DEOPERADORA,S.A., f/k/a EMI RESORTS MANAGEMENT, S.A., a foreign corporation.
6
Management Inc., CCW Dominicana, S.A, Cofresco Holdings Inc., Inmobiliaria Moncey, S.A.,
Cellwave Networks Limited and WWIN International Limited (collectively, the "Corporate
Defendants"), by and through undersigned counsel, herein responds to Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint and Jury Trial Demand (the "Amended Complaint"), paragraph by corresponding
paragraph, and say:2
INTRODUCTION
1. Denied.
2. The document referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint speaks for
itself, and therefore, Corporate Defendants deny the allegations in said paragraph.
4. Denied.
5. Corporate Defendants admit that Plaintiffs purport to bring an action seeking, among
other things, compensatory and exemplary damages, but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief
requested; Corporate Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 5 and demand strict
proof thereof.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
2
All allegations not specifically admitted are hereby denied.
7
a. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
b. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
c. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
d. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
e. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
f. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
g. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
8
h. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
i. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
j. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
k. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
l. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
m. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
n. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
9
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 10 of
356
o. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
p. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
q. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
r. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
s. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
t. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
u. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
10
356
v. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
w. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
x. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
y. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
z. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
aa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
bb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
11
356
cc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
dd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
gg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
hh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
12
356
jj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
kk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
mm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
nn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
oo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
pp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
13
356
qq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
rr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
tt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
uu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
vv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ww. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
14
356
xx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
yy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
zz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
aaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
bbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ddd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
15
356
eee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
fff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ggg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
hhh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
iii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
jjj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
kkk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
16
356
lll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
mmm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
nnn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ooo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ppp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
qqq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
rrr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
17
356
sss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ttt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
uuu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
vvv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
www. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
xxx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
yyy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
18
356
zzz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
aaaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
bbbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
cccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
dddd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
eeee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ffff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
19
356
gggg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
hhhh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
iiii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
jjjj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
kkkk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
llll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
mmmm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
20
356
nnnn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
oooo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
pppp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
qqqq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
rrrr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ssss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
tttt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
21
356
uuuu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
vvvv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
wwww. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
xxxx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
yyyy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
zzzz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
aaaaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
22
356
bbbbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ccccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ddddd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
eeeee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
fffff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ggggg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
hhhhh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
23
356
iiiii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
jjjjj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
kkkkk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
lllll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
mmmmm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
nnnnn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ooooo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
24
356
ppppp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
qqqqq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
rrrrr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
sssss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ttttt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
uuuuu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
vvvvv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
25
356
wwwww. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
xxxxx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
yyyyy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
zzzzz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
aaaaaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
bbbbbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
cccccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
26
356
dddddd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
eeeeee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ffffff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
gggggg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
hhhhhh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
iiiiii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
jjjjjj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
27
356
kkkkkk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
llllll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
mmmmmm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
nnnnnn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
oooooo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
pppppp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
qqqqqq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
28
356
rrrrrr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ssssss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
tttttt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
uuuuuu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
vvvvvv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
wwwwww. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
xxxxxx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
29
356
yyyyyy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
zzzzzz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
aaaaaaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
bbbbbbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
ccccccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
7. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
9. Corporate Defendants admit that HSV Hoteles de Operadora, S.A. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic for jurisdictional
purposes only. Corporate Defendants deny that HSV Hoteles de Operadora, S.A. was formerly
known as EMI Resorts Management S.A.
30
356
11. Corporate Defendants admit that EMI Cofresi Developments, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands for jurisdictional purposes
only. Corporate Defendants deny that EMI Cofresi Developments, Inc. is also known as Cofresi
Developments, Inc.
13. Corporate Defendants admit that Elliott Management, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada for jurisdictional
purposes only. Corporate Defendants deny that Elliott Management, Inc. is also known as EMI
Management, Inc.
thereof.
31
356
thereof.
thereof.
32. Corporate Defendants admit that CCW Dominicana, S.A. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic for jurisdictional purposes
only. Corporate Defendants deny that CCW Dominicana, S.A. is also known as CCW LTD.
thereof.
32
356
thereof.
45. Denied.
46. The documents referred to in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint speak for
themselves, and therefore, Corporate Defendants deny the allegations in said paragraph.
47. Denied.
thereof.
thereof.
thereof. Corporate Defendants deny that Mr. Cabral was on the Board of Directors of EMIRI.
33
356
thereof.
thereof.
thereof.
55. Denied.
56. Corporate Defendants admit that Derek Elliott is Frederick ("Fred") Elliott's son.
Corporate Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 56 and demand strict proof
thereof.
57. Paragraph 57 does not contain factual allegations which require a response. To
the extent a response is required; the statutes referenced in Paragraph 57 speak for themselves
and therefore Corporate Defendants deny the legal conclusions made with respect to such
statutes.
the extent a response is required; the statutes referenced in Paragraph 57 speak for themselves
and therefore Corporate Defendants deny the legal conclusions made with respect to such
statutes.
34
356
59. The statutes referenced in Paragraph 59 speak for themselves and therefore
Corporate Defendants deny the legal conclusions made with respect to such statutes. Corporate
Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 59.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
60. Denied.
61. Denied.
The Resort Properties
The EMI Sun Village Resort & Spa
62. Denied.
63. Corporate Defendants admit that in 1987 Frederick Elliott solicited a group of
investors to begin the process of acquiring raw land in the Dominican Republic for future
development as a hotel/resort. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made
in paragraph 63.
64. Denied.
thereof.
thereof.
67. Denied.
68. Corporate Defendants admit that the Sun Village Resort offered 300 rooms,
master suites, and luxury villas; seven pools and roman tubs, children's pools and a waterslide;
35
356
five international restaurants and nine bars; among other amenities. Corporate Defendants deny
the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 68.
69. Denied.
70. Denied.
71. Corporate Defendants admit that the amenities were sufficient to support a 500
room resort, and that Sun Village was expensive to operate. Corporate Defendants deny the
remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 71.
72. Denied.
73. Denied.
74. Corporate Defendants admit that the "Residence Product" was not an equity
product, but rather an interest in and/or the right to use the real property. Corporate Defendants
deny the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 74.
75. Admitted.
76. Denied.
77. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to what specific marketing
materials Plaintiffs refer to in paragraph 77 and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof. Notwithstanding, all marketing materials used by the Corporate Defendants were
created by James Catledge and his related companies and agents and not by the Corporate
Defendants.
78. Denied.
79. Denied.
80. Denied.
81. Denied.
36
356
82. Corporate Defendants admit that certain of the Corporate Defendants retained the
option to buy back the "TR Timeshare Owner's" suite after five (5) years, at the owner's original
purchase price. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 82.
83. Denied.
84. Corporate Defendants admit that the Residence Product sales contracts provided
differing rates of "NUF" to be paid to the TR Timeshare Owner but at the request of James
Catledge and/or his agents, and the sales contracts did not state a percentage return, but
expressed NUF payments in dollar increments. The remainder of paragraph 84 does not contain
allegations of fact; but rather a hypothetical that does not require a response. To the extent a
response is required, Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 84
and demand strict proof thereof.
thereof.
thereof.
87. Denied.
88. Corporate Defendants deny the first sentence of paragraph 88. Corporate
Defendants are without knowledge with respect to the remainder of the allegations made in
paragraph 88 and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
89. Corporate Defendants admit that there were big improvements at the Sun Village
Resort which included, without limitation, a new spa and spa suites renovation which included a
37
356
work-out room, spa, treatment rooms, salon and pool. Corporate Defendants are without
knowledge as to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 89 and therefore, deny same
and demand strict proof thereof.
90. Admitted with respect to the Corporate Defendants only.
the second sentence of paragraph 91 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and
demand strict proof thereof. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made
in paragraph 91.
The EMI Residence
92. Corporate Defendants admit that the EMI Residence3 was scheduled to open in
late 2006 and that, originally, the EMI Residence was to consist of 198 one and two bedroom
luxury master suites and spacious studios. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to
the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 92 and demand strict proof thereof.
93. Denied as plead. Due to the re-design and upgrades by Maxim, only 108 units
were approved for development and there was only enough land to build 108 units with the
expanded room and amenity footprint which gave guests better value and higher luxury.
94. Denied.
95. Denied.
96. Denied.
97. Corporate Defendants admit that the process of condominiumization of the
various elements of the fractional ownership property formerly known as the EMI Residences
3
The new buildings at Sun Village Cofresi were initially called the "Residence." The Residence was later referred
to as the "Maxim Bungalows" or simply the "Bungalows." Initially, the "Residence" product was sold in respect of
them, but they were later "fractionalized."
38
356
was not completed; however, the condominiumization of Juan Dolio was complete. Corporate
Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 97.
The Juan Dolio Property
98. Corporate Defendants admit that they, along with James Catledge and his
companies and agents, decided to pursue an opportunity to purchase an existing hotel property
for re-development.
99. Corporate Defendants admit that the property was located at Juan Dolio in the
Dominican Republic. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made in
paragraph 99.
100. Admitted.
101. Corporate Defendants admit that they, along with James Catledge and his
companies and agents, devised a plan whereby they would re-develop the Juan Dolio Property as
a high-end resort with approximately 241 rooms. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of
the allegations made in paragraph 101.
102. Denied.
103. Denied.
104. Denied.
105. Denied.
106. Denied.
thereof.
39
356
108. Corporate Defendants admit that sales of the Passport fractional product began in
October 2005; however, the term "Passport" is not a term used in any of the legal documents
prepared by the Corporate Defendants' professionals and was rather a term utilized by Catledge
and the Impact Entities and agents, and would only refer to fractional product sold at Juan Dolio.
Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 108.
109. Denied.
thereof. In addition, upon information and belief, the Deposit Agreement was created by James
Catledge and/or his companies and/or agents, not the Corporate Defendants, and was created to
take reservations only.4 Additionally, the only purchase documents recognized as legitimate by
the Corporate Defendants are the documents created by Greenberg Traurig, P.A. at the direction
of the Corporate Defendants. Accordingly, the so-called "Deposit Agreement" and any other
document created by James Catledge and/or his companies and/or agents are not binding on the
Corporate Defendants.
111. Admitted.
112. Admitted.
113. Denied.
4
Plaintiffs allege in their fn. 110 that "the parties are in possession of all relevant purchase documents as they
should have been kept in the ordinary course of business." As this Court is well aware, the Corporate Defendants
are not in possession of any of their books and records as such documents were seized by the Special
Master/Monitor and worse, were removed from the Dominican Republic in violation of Dominican Republic law
and where held at the offices of James Catledge's attorneys, Medina and Rizek in Santo Domingo, thus potentially
contaminating the books and records and subjecting them to potential "scrubbing" by James Catledge's attorneys
and/or agents.
40
356
thereof.
thereof.
116. Denied.
117. Denied.
118. Denied.
120. Denied.
121. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to what the prospective
purchasers "relied" upon and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof. In addition,
the documents referred to in paragraph 121 speak for themselves, and therefore, Corporate
Defendants deny all allegations with respect to such documents.
122. Admitted.
123. Denied.
124. Denied.
The Elliotts' Scheme to Defraud
125. Admitted.
126. Denied.
127. Denied.
41
356
128. Denied.
129. Denied.
130. Denied.
131. Denied.
132. Denied.
133. Denied as to paragraph and all subparagraphs.
134. Denied.
The Elliotts' Misrepresentations
The Elliotts' Latest Scheme to Raise Cash
137. Denied.
138. Denied.
139. Denied.
140. The documents referred to in paragraph 140 speak for themselves, and therefore,
Corporate Defendants deny all allegations with respect to such documents.
141. Corporate Defendants admit that certain of the Corporate Defendants
communicated to owners of the Passport that Aviati intended to begin "foreclosing" upon the
notes, and stating that purchasers will lose the deposit monies they paid, unless these purchasers
executed additional agreements. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations
made in paragraph 141.
142. Denied.
143. Denied.
42
356
144. Denied.
145. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations regarding
whether there are "several instances where owners who have successfully sold their fractional
interests did not receive the proceeds from the sale" contained in paragraph 145 of the Amended
Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof Denied. Corporate
Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 145.
147. Denied.
148. Denied.
149. Denied.
150. Denied.
151. Denied.
The Elliotts' Poison Pill – Foreclosure of the Cofresi and Juan Dolio
152. Denied.
153. Admitted.
154. Admitted.
155. Admitted.
156. Corporate Defendants admit the first two sentences of paragraph 156. Corporate
Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in the remainder of the
allegations made in paragraph 156 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and
demand strict proof thereof.
43
356
thereof.
The Targets of the Elliotts' Scheme to Defraud
158. Denied.
thereof.
160. Denied.
thereof.
thereof.
thereof.
COUNT I
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organization ("RICO"), Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962(e)
164. Corporate Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their responses to the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 163 above as though fully set forth herein.
44
356
the extent a response is required, the statute described in paragraph 165 speaks for itself, and
therefore the allegations in paragraph 165 are denied and Corporate Defendants demands strict
proof thereof.
the extent a response is required, the statute described in paragraph 166 speaks for itself, and
therefore the allegations in paragraph 166 are denied and Corporate Defendants demands strict
proof thereof.
167. The statute described in paragraph 167 speaks for itself, and therefore the
allegations in paragraph 167 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof thereof.
In addition, Corporate Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 167.
Goal and Purpose
168. Denied.
169. Denied.
The Laws that Frederick and Derek Violated While

They Conducted the Affairs of the Elliott Enterprise
170. The allegations in paragraph 170 and its subparagraphs (a) through (f) do not
appear to be directed to Corporate Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be
construed as requiring a response from Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
171. Denied.
The Pattern of Racketeering Activity
172. The allegations in paragraph 172 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
45
356
Transportation of Stolen Monies in Interstate or Foreign Commerce
Sale or Receipt of Stolen Monies
Wire Fraud
Interstate and Foreign Travel or Transportation in

Aid of the Elliott Racketeering Enterprise
Laundering of Monetary Instruments
46
356
180. Denied.
thereof.
182. Denied.
Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Criminally Derived Property over $10,000.00
184. Denied.
185. Denied.
Plaintiff's "wherefore" clause does not contain factual allegations which require a
response. To the extent a response is required, Corporate Defendants deny any and all liability
and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any equitable or legal relief.
COUNT II
Conspiracy to Violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) in Violation of § 1962(d)
47
356
189. Denied.
190. Denied.
191. Denied.
COUNT III
Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Florida Statute § 772.103
194. Denied.
48
356
COUNT IV
Conspiracy to Violate Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 772.103
199. Denied.
COUNT V
BREACH OF CONTRACT
201. The documents described in paragraph 201 speak for themselves, and therefore
the allegations in paragraph 201 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof
thereof.
paragraph 202 of the Amended Complaint related to why Plaintiffs allegedly made their
49
356
purchases and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof. Corporate Defendants deny
the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 202.
203. Denied.
204. Denied.
COUNT VI
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
206. Denied.
207. Denied.
208. Denied.
209. Denied.
210. Denied.
211. The allegations in Paragraph 211 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
212. Denied.
213. Denied.
50
356
COUNT VII
FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT
215. Denied.
216. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the specific allegations
contained in paragraph 216 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand
strict proof thereof.
thereof.
contained in paragraph 216 of the Amended Complaint related to how and why Plaintiffs
allegedly entered into a contractual relationship and therefore, deny same and demand strict
proof thereof. Corporate Defendants deny the remaining the remaining allegations made in
paragraph 218.
contained in paragraph 216 of the Amended Complaint related to whether Plaintiffs allegedly
relied upon representations of the "Elliott Group Defendants" nor do Corporate Defendants know
what "representations" Plaintiffs allegedly relied upon, and therefore, deny same and demand
strict proof thereof. Corporate Defendants deny the remaining allegations made in paragraph
219.
51
356
COUNT VIII
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
221. Denied.
222. Denied.
223. Denied.
224. Denied.
the extent a response is required; Corporate Defendants deny the allegations made in paragraph
225.
226.
227.
228. Denied.
229. Denied.
230. Denied.
52
356
COUNT IX
EQUITABLE LIEN
232. Denied.
233. Denied.
234. Denied.
235. Denied.
236. Denied.
237. Denied.
238. Denied.
239. Denied.
240.
241. Denied.
53
356
COUNT X
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
243. Denied.
244. Denied.
thereof.
246. Denied.
247. Corporate Defendants admit the existence of their legal rights to the Juan Dolio
Property and the Miches Property. The remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 247 are
denied.
248. Denied.
249. Denied.
250. Denied.
251. Denied.
252. Denied.
253. Denied.
254. Denied.
54
356
COUNT XI
ACCOUNTING
thereof.
257. Corporate Defendants admit that the Sun Village Resort and Juan Dolio Project
were operated and managed in a commercially reasonably manner. Corporate Defendants are
without knowledge as to the allegations contained in the remainder of paragraph 257 of the
Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
258. Denied.
259. Denied.
260. Denied.
261. Denied.
262. Denied.
COUNT XII
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
264. Denied.
55
356
265. Denied.
266. Denied.
267. Denied.
268. Denied.
269. Denied.
COUNT XIII
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (AVIATI)
thereof.
274. Admitted.
56
356
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are admitted.
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are admitted.
277. Denied.
281. Denied.
57
356
COUNT XIV
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
284. Denied.
285. Denied.
286. Denied.
287. Denied.
COUNT XV
FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING
289. Denied.
290. Denied.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Corporate Defendants demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
58
356
DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS NOT EXPRESSLY ADMITTED
Corporate Defendants deny all allegations not expressly admitted above and demands
strict proof thereof. Moreover, all admissions or denials made herein are made of behalf of the
Corporate Defendants only and are not made on behalf of any other "Elliott Group Defendant" as
defined in the Amended Complaint.
59
356
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The Corporate Defendants reserve the right to assert any and all applicable defenses to
Plaintiffs' claims. The Corporate Defendants have not yet obtained discovery from Plaintiffs or
from third parties in connection with this action, and Corporate Defendants reserve the right to
amend or otherwise supplement this pleading on that basis. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing and without regard to whether the defenses set forth below are affirmative defenses
within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c), and without conceding that any such defense must be
set forth in their Answer, Corporate Defendants state as follows:
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
OVERVIEW
1. Frederick ("Fred") Elliott and Derek Elliott (the "Elliotts"), principals of the
Corporate Defendants, are businessmen with 22 years experience in tourism and resort
development in the Dominican Republic.
2. The Elliotts are both of good character and have no criminal convictions.
3. Prior to 1987 Fred Elliott was engaged in financial services and the syndication of
real estate developments.
4. Beginning in 1987, Fred Elliott solicited a group of Canadian investors to begin
the process of acquiring raw land in the Dominican Republic ("DR") for development. The
initial intention was to acquire an approximately 23-acre parcel in a section of Puerto Plata on
the northern coast of the DR, commonly known as Cofresi Beach. Over the course of the last 22
years the "Sun Village Resort" development has grown from there as set out below.
5. In order to carry out the development a number of companies or partnerships have
been incorporated or otherwise established over the last 22 years. These companies/partnerships
60
356
have all taken detailed and appropriate advice from law firms, accountants, bankers and other
specialist advisers. Reference to such advice is not, and shall not be construed as a waiver with
respect to the Corporate Defendants' attorney-client privilege attendant to such advice. The
purpose of taking such advice has been to establish legitimate, compliant and efficient businesses
to undertake the various developments with which these companies have been involved. The
many legitimate considerations for these developments include:
a. minimizing the effects of DR land transfer taxes and capital gains taxes;
b. legitimately reducing tax burdens of participant investors in countries such
as Canada;
c. ensuring compliance with securities laws in the Turks and Caicos Islands
("TCI") and Ontario where there have been public offerings in respect of inter alia
Corporate Defendant EMI Sun Village Inc ("EMISVI") and other companies identified
below; and
d. compliance with US securities and other laws relating to the selling of
time share and fractional interests to United States citizens.
6. The list of advisers to the Corporate Defendants over the years includes:
a. Lang Michener, one of Canada’s major law firms and its Toronto, Ottawa
and Vancouver offices, until about 2000;
b. Gardiner Roberts LLP, another of Canada's major law firms, from
approximately 2000 to date following the change in Firm from Lang Michener of a senior
partner William P. Lambert;
61
356
c. Greenberg Traurig – a high profile and well respected US national (and
international) widely regarded for its expertise in timeshare and fractional ownership
products;
d. Misick and Stanbrook, a TCI law firm from about 1993 to date;
e. Miller Simons O’Sullivan, a TCI law firm, who advised in respect of the
transactions related to the property located in Miches;
f. Ernst & Young, accountants, Santo Domingo, DR; and
g. Salas Piantini & Associates, accountants from Santo Domingo, DR.
7. Nothing in any advice asked for or given by any of the professional firms over 22
years was intended to establish or did establish or create a fraudulent or unlawful scheme or
RICO enterprise as the Plaintiffs' seek to unfairly infer.
8. In 2003 Fred Elliott went into semi retirement and acted as Chairman of some of
the Elliott companies. He then returned in May 2008 to assist with the then impending economic
downturn and the need to restructure the Elliott companies to meet foreseeable economic
challenges. What was not foreseen was the pre-emptive and destructive litigation tactics brought
upon the Elliott Companies by Catledge and his Impact Entities (as defined herein).
The History of the Development
The purpose of the following recitation of the history of the development is to

demonstrate that the development which is the subject of the instant dispute
existed long before the Plaintiffs or Catledge and his Impact Entities and agents
came onto the scene. The structures used have grown to accommodate the needs
of purchasers and different business opportunities, and they were not designed to
defeat creditor claims of the Plaintiffs or any other claims.
9. By 1989, a plan of subdivision was prepared in respect of the initial 23 acre parcel
at Cofresi Beach, with the intention being to sell or develop lots. This was not a waterfront
62
356
parcel. The 23 acre parcel was purchased in the name of Mirador Cofresi Limited Partnership,
("MCLP") an Ontario Limited Partnership.
10. The 23 acre parcel purchase was funded by 18 Ontario based investors as limited
partners. During the period from 1989 to 1998, a number of lots in the aforementioned parcel
were developed. 5 lots were developed with houses. Four lots were sold to EMISVI (formerly
known as Hacienda Sun Village Inc.). Three remain with EMISVI today. The remaining lands
were sold to EMISVI by MCLP in exchange for shares in EMISVI by approved limited
partnership resolution.
11. In 1993 an adjacent property was acquired by another developer, Merlin Travel
(later Connex Caribe). This was a large Austrian Tour Operator whose principal was a Helmut
Mauerbauer. The adjacent property was then developed into a US$100m + resort complex (the
Hacienda Resort) with 60 -70 private villas, various hotels, suites, and apartment complexes.
12. In 1994 it was agreed with Mr. Mauerbauer to construct a 48 room two building
annex to one of the Hacienda developments known as "Hacienda Elisabeth." Ontario investors
participated in this $1,200,000 project via a DR company. This development ("Annex 94") was
sold to EMISVI in exchange for shares in 2002, which was approved by shareholder resolution.
13. In 1995 the Elliotts and the Corporate Defendants (and/or other Elliott owned or
controlled entities) (the "Elliott Companies") undertook another 36 hotel room development
annex to Hacienda Elisabeth ("Annex 95"). This was done using a TCI company, Seaweed
Investment Corporation, via an exempt offering in Ontario. The applicable offering
memorandum was filed with the Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC"). This property was
then sold to EMISVI in 2002 in exchange for shares in EMISVI, which was approved by
shareholder resolution.
63
356
14. In 1997 Amber Coast Resort Corporation Ltd was formed as a TCI company and
made an exempt share offering in Ontario. Again the offering memorandum was filed with the
OSC. Amber Coast acquired the 66 room Hacienda Elisabeth from Mr. Mauerbauer. These
rooms were then leased back to him as a hotel operator.
15. The relationship with Mr. Mauerbauer/Hacienda Resorts collapsed in
approximately 2000 when Hacienda Resorts failed to meet payment obligations in respect of
hotel rooms it was leasing and (later) managing.
16. One of the effects of the breakdown of the relationship with Mr.
Mauerbauer/Hacienda Resorts was that it left the properties the Elliott Companies owned
without effective beach access. The Elliott Companies had previously enjoyed beach access
through property owned by Mr. Mauerbauer.
17. As a result of the lack of beach access, in 2000 the Elliott Companies negotiated
with a Juan Carlos Morales, a DR businessman and property owner, to acquire an adjacent
beachfront property to ensure that the existing properties enjoyed beachfront access. This was
ultimately achieved by a joint venture with Mr. Morales.
18. In late 2000, this joint venture conveyed a portion of the beachfront lands to a
company the Elliott Companies formed in the TCI, namely, EMI Beach Palms Inc. ("Beach
Palms").
19. In order to raise capital, Beach Palms conducted a public offering pursuant to a
TCI prospectus, which was submitted to and approved by the TCI Financial Services
Commission ("FSC").
64
356
20. Further plans to develop this joint venture and to sell the beach access to other
resorts eventually led to all of these resorts and ventures being merged into EMISVI in 2002 in
exchange for shares and with shareholder approval.
21. The only company not merged into EMISVI was EMI Cofresi Developments Inc.
22. EMI Cofresi Developments Inc is 50% owner of Cofresco Holdings Inc. of which
Mr. Morales owns the other 50%. This is now the corporate vehicle for the aforementioned joint
venture with Mr. Morales.
23. The joint venture owns the remainder of the joint venture beachfront lands which
are adjacent to the Sun Village Resort ("Treasure Bluff").
24. EMI Cofresi Developments Inc. conducted its own TCI prospectus offering in
2002 pursuant to a prospectus approved by the FSC.
25. The purchase monies used by EMI Cofresi Developments Inc. were acquired long
before any of the Plaintiffs appeared and many years before the Elliotts even knew James
Catledge or had any dealings whatsoever with him or his Impact Entities and agents. Thus,
Plaintiffs have no valid cause of action against EMI Cofresi Developments Inc. under any
scenario.
26. Cofresco Holdings Inc. never contracted with any of the Plaintiffs or other
purchasers. It has never received any monies which are the subject of the Plaintiffs’ purchases.
Thus, Plaintiffs have no valid cause of action against EMI Cofresi Developments Inc. under any
scenario.
27. To mitigate against the effects of the DR land transfer taxes, the various property
acquisitions referred to were effected by transfer of the shares for contribution in kind of the
various DR companies that owned the land parcels. The result of this is that there are six DR
65
356
land owning companies that own all of the parcels comprising the Sun Village Resort & Spa at
Cofresi, DR. In turn these companies are ultimately owned by EMISVI. Cofresco Holdings Inc.
owns land adjacent to the Sun Village Resort, also through a DR corporate subsidiary.
28. EMISVI is 100% owned by approximately 1,700 shareholders. Many of these are
original shareholders of an initial offering of shares of $32,000,000 in 2000. This offering was
subject to a detailed prospectus which, in accordance with the TCI Companies Ordinance, was
reviewed and approved by the TCI FSC.
29. The FSC prospectus is a voluminous public document. As already indicated there
have been numerous offerings between 1998 and 2003. In fact, all business that the Elliott
Companies have ever conducted has been with the highest level of compliance and disclosure
and subject to shareholder approval.
30. As a result of the acquisitions referenced above, the Sun Village Resort & Spa
offered 300 rooms, master suites, and luxury villas; seven pools and a children's pool, and a
waterslide; four restaurants, and three bars; among other amenities.
31. In order to fund the costs to acquire and develop this resort, EMISVI raised
approximately $38,000,000 in equity capital by public share offerings and the issuance of shares
in exchange for land contributions.
32. The Sun Village Resort opened briefly in October 2001 as planned, but then
closed due to (i) the impact of 9/11 on the travel industry and (ii) opening mechanical issues.
33. The Resort re-opened in February 2002.
34. In May of 2003 the northern DR suffered an earthquake of 6.7 of the Richter scale
which caused damage to the Sun Village Resort. This necessitated brief closure of damaged
areas and repairs.
66
356
35. In October of 2003 4 restaurants at the Sun Village Resort were destroyed by
accidental fire. Six weeks later the insurer covering these losses, Segna Insurance, declared
bankruptcy with a consequent loss of insurance coverage through no fault of the Elliott
Companies. Unfortunately, the Elliott Companies were unable to recover from Segna as a result
of Segna's bankruptcy, and the Elliott Companies suffered over a million dollar blow.
36. These issues all created operational and financial difficulties for a new resort and
it took time, energy and expense to repair the Sun Village Resort and restore good will and trust
with tour operators. It was in this atmosphere that the Elliott Companies began their disastrous
relationship with Catledge and his Impact Entities and agents as described below.
37. Importantly, prior to their introduction to Catledge and his Impact Entities, the
Elliott Companies' business model consisted of capitalizing their projects through registered
offering memorandums and prospectuses in the appropriate jurisdictions. Put differently, the
Elliott Companies had never, prior to their ill-fated relationship with Catledge and the Impact
Entites, offered purchasers fractional ownership product. However, as described below, once
advised of the so-called benefits of fractional ownership product by Catledge, the Elliotts, with
Catledge at their side, met with lawyers from the law firm Greenberg Traurig which was retained
to draft complaint documentation – at a cost of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The EMI Residence
38. Utilizing a portion of the parcel now owned by EMISVI, it was decided in or
around 2004 to construct a new development, known as the EMI Residence.
39. This project was initially to consist of 198 one and two bedroom luxury master
suites and spacious studios.
67
356
40. In 2004, in order to provide for additional funding to complete the construction of
the resort, EMISVI began to sell timeshare interests at the request of Catledge and Impact.
41. This timeshare product was referred to as the "Residence Product."
42. The Residence Product allowed individuals to purchase seasonal timeshare
weeks. The timeshare owner would have the option of occupying the room during their allotted
week(s). If the owner did not use the timeshare unit, EMISVI had the option to utilize the week
for rental to tour operators.
43. The revenue generated from this would on a discretionary basis be split. A fixed
amount for each week utilized, known as a "non-use fee" ("NUF") is payable to a timeshare
owner, but (i) only in the event that the applicable timeshare week was actually used for rental
and (ii) on a discretionary basis vested in the developer.
44. The NUF would be paid on a quarterly basis to the timeshare owner as
compensation for the use of their timeshare week(s).
45. The Plaintiffs, through their lack of disclosure of the purchase documents
materially misrepresents the agreement in their Amended Complaint.
46. The NUF is discretionary (in the developer) and is payable only if the unit is used
by the developer and not otherwise.
47. During any period of construction no NUF would be contractually payable in any
event. Any NUF paid during construction was part of a built in construction budget cost of
financing and in no way can be considered a ponzi or "ponzi-like" scheme.
48. EMISVI retained the option to purchase the owner's week(s) after five years, at
the timeshare owner's original purchase price. However, the owner also had the option to sell
their timeshare week(s) prior to the expiration of this five year period, in which case the
68
356
timeshare week(s) would be sold through an on-site sales service programme, which was
exclusively operated by sales agents (in this case Impact).
49. Selling and marketing costs and the related sales commission associated with the
sale of timeshare inventory would, as is customary and contractually disclosed, be deducted from
the timeshare owner's sales proceeds.
50. It is a common feature of the sale of interests in tourism and resort developments
that developers incur significant marketing and sales costs. These resorts were no different.
51. The selling and marketing of time share interests (as opposed to the entire interest
in a unit/condominium) involves much higher marketing costs. Each condo/unit can be sold
many times according to the fractional interest. It is accepted in the time share industry that
marketing and sales costs can account for as much of 50% of the sales proceeds. To non
industry personnel this percentage seems high but is an accepted cost of such a business.
52. The EMI Residence project, and all fees and amounts payable to non-arms' length
parties were approved by resolutions of the shareholders of EMISVI.
53. The capital intensive business of developing real estate in prime beach vacation
locations for the sale of timeshares, and the earning of resultant service fees, is a normal legal
enterprise in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and elsewhere.
54. As is typical in the timeshare industry, cash flows from the sales of timeshare
properties, and the ancillary services provided by risk-taking investors via their legally instituted
companies, were used to fund continuing construction costs and resort improvements at the
Residence.
69
356
The Cofresi Fractional Ownership Product
55. During the construction phase of the EMI Residence, EMISVI adapted to changes
in the marketplace. It was felt that a ‘higher end’ product was a better business model. This led
to a substantial upgrade of the quality level of the Residence project. For example, room sizes
were increased which necessitated a reduction in the overall number of rooms from 198 to 108.
The project became known as the "Maxim Bungalows," later changed to the "Bungalows."
56. In early 2007, EMISVI based on advice from Catledge/Impact, decided to market
more popular "fractional interests" in respect of the Bungalows (this product had actually been
previously developed in connection with the Juan Dolio project, discussed below).
Notwithstanding the licensing issues with Catledge/Impact in the United States (that the Elliott
Companies were working with Catledge/Impact and the appropriate regulatory agencies to
rectify), there was no licensing requirement in the Dominican Republic for such fractional
interests; and therefore, such fractional interests could be sold.
57. With respect to the efforts the Elliotts took to rectify the discovered licensing
issues, the Elliott Companies took immediate and decisive action. For example, the Elliott
Companies spent in excess of $120,000 with the law firm Cassels Brock in Toronto, Canada to
take whatever action was required to assist Catledge and his Impact agents with compliance with
Canadian law. Moreover, when the Elliotts learned Catledge was using unlicensed
representatives in Idaho, rather than abandoning his agents and his clients, the Elliott Companies
spent over $600,000 with Greenberg Traurig further assisting Catledge and his Impact agents
with compliance with the laws of the state of Idaho. In addition to these steps, the Elliott
Companies (1) sent staff to Idaho and California to assist Impact purchasers with the deficiencies
70
356
in their documentation and (2) hired a compliance officer (Brian Tenpenny) to stay in Impact's
offices in Henderson to assist the Impact Entities with compliance issues.
58. Importantly, during this time, the Elliotts made crystal clear to Catledge that
although they were willing to assist Catledge and the Impact Entities and agents with getting
compliant with applicable regulatory agencies to a point, ultimately Catledge and the Impact
Entities were responsible for the misrepresentations they had made, and upon which the Elliott
Companies relied, and if the Catledge and Impact Entities and agents did not become compliant,
for whatever reason, Catledge and the Impact Entities would be held to account for their
malfeasance including, at a minimum, claw back of the prepaid commisions.
59. This product involved dividing seasonal timeshare units into 13 fractions,
covering the 13 four week periods in each year.
60. As with any other offering the Elliott Companies had conducted previously the
Elliott Companies contracted premier international legal advisors to prepare the compliant
disclosure and purchase documents along with shareholder approval.
61. Former Residence timeshare purchasers were allowed to convert into this
fractional product, as was contemplated in the original Residence agreements (Section 9.4 of the
Schedule thereto).
62. Fractional purchasers were also given the option of entering into rental
agreements in respect of their fractional interests, which did not allow for rental pooling which is
common place in the industry, and was executed pursuant to fully comliant documentation
prepared by Greenberg Traurig. The Elliott Companies were in the process of completing the
condominium regime which was halted due to the Plaintiff’s reckless litigation described below.
71
356
The Juan Dolio Property
63. In late 2004, some of the Corporate Defendants, together with Catledge, acquired
an existing hotel property for redevelopment located at Juan Dolio, another popular resort
destination beach area in the DR (the "Juan Dolio Property").
64. The property contained a Sheraton hotel consisting of 268 rooms and was owned
by two DR banks, Banco de Reservas and Banco del Progreso, which acquired the property from
the previous owner in a foreclosure proceeding. At the time, the Juan Dolio Property was then
being operated as a deep discount hotel.
65. Sun Village Juan Dolio Inc. ("SVJD") paid for, via a down payment of $4.5m
(plus soft costs of US$400,000), and agreement to assume the banks' debt of approximately
$8.5m the Juan Dolio Property, and began efforts to re-develop and market the property as a
luxury resort, with approximately 241 rooms that would be sold as fractional interests.
66. As part of the Juan Dolio project, Catledge and his Impact sales force designed a
new product called "Passport."
67. This product differed from the Residence product in that it offered the purchaser
an ownership interest in a unit.
68. Catledge has a 42.5% beneficial interest in the Gibraltar parent corporation of
SVJD, namely, Cellwave Networks Limited ("Cellwave").
69. Cellwave was organized as a shareholder holding company.
70. The Cellwave vehicle appealed to Catledge as he told the Elliotts on several
occasions it allowed him to have an ownership interest in the Juan Dolio Property without
disclosing the same to his Impact sales "associates" (the sales force). Catledge also required that
various commissions and "overrides" be paid.
72
356
71. EMISVI and SVJD paid a total of $19.7 million to, as it turns out, Catledge's
secret (from Impact associates) Cook Islands trust, namely, D.R.C.I. Trust ("DRCI"). These
were the stated contractual commissions per the relevant agreements.
72. These Passport interests were sold pursuant the Residential Beneficial Interest
Disclosure Documents and Purchase Contract. Any "Deposit Agreement" that Catledge or
Impact used in advance of the signature of these agreements was expressly stated to be merely an
"expression of interest" after which the detailed and binding contract was entered into which
superseded any prior documentation.
73. Catledge and the Impact Entities required an upfront payment of the
aforementioned deposit in order to allow for the immediate payment of commissions to Impact
and to DRCI.
74. The total commissions and marketing cost structure in respect of the Passport
product was 40%. Of itself this is not unusual in the timeshare industry. However, what made
the Passport product unusual is that commissions and marketing costs on 100% of the purchase
price were to be paid upfront, from the 50% initial deposit.
75. What is tragic is that SVJD paid 40% commissions etc. on the 50% of the
purchase price which was secured by a promissory note from the purchaser and due to the
development. However, the notes were never paid. In other words on a typical sale with a
purchase price of $100,000.00, total commisions to Catledge and the Impact Entities were
$28,000.00, and another $22,000.00 in commissions went to the Elliott Companies which were
put back into the project, leaving $50,000 due from Catledge and the Impact Entities purchaser
which was never collected. The net effect is that $28,000 which went to Catledge and the Impact
Entities, plus the $50,000 due from the purchasers was never collected, leaving the project
73
356
hopelessly underfunded. Importantly, these are Catledge and the Impact Entities purchasers,
Catledge and the Impact Entities structure, and Catledge and the Impact Entitites were the only
entities that profited from this arrangement. Finally, it was Catledge and the Impact Entities
obligation to collect the $50,000 due from the purchasers, but they failed to fulfill their
obligations, choosing litigation to deflect attention from this obvious civil theft.
76. SVJD originally intended to factor the 50% unpaid portion of the purchase price
but, unfortunately, was never able to do so, largely due to the fact that Impact had engaged in a
rogue, totally non-compliant sales program in respect of the same.
77. The "Deposit Agreements" were utilized by Catledge and the Impact Entities to
obtain initial deposits, and in effect, reserve a unit, but were never intended or authorized by the
Elliott Companies to ultimately bind purchases. Catledge and the Impact Entities simply failed
to require their purchasers to review and execute the compliant documentation.
78. SVJD had from the outset retained Greenberg Traurig, highly experienced U.S.
counsel, who were assisted by Canadian and DR counsel, to fully and properly structure the
fractional interests and develop the fractional interest purchase documentation. This was done at
a cost of approximately $1,000,000.
79. James Catledge was at the initial planning meeting and had represented that he
would follow the disclosure requirements that were outlined and that he would comply with all
licensing requirements. This compliant documentation prepared by counsel supersedes any
previous representations and agreements, including the Deposit Agreements that may have been
used by the Impact sales force.
80. The fractional interest documentation was made compliant in California and
Idaho and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, through subsidiary corporations. Unfortunately,
74
356
Impact and its sales agents did not themselves become compliant in any of those states, contrary
to Impact’s representations to and agreements with SVJD.
81. Impact actually refused to become compliant because, upon information and
belief, Catledge did not wish to spend the legal and other fees required to become complaint, and
Catledge further insisted that all purchases had to be "closed" in the Dominican Republic,
necessitating the development of a complete set of the fractional interest purchase documentation
for that application.
82. Impact also insisted that all purchasers be reimbursed for their airfare to the
Dominican Republic, and be entitled to stay at the hotel, with all food and beverages, free of
charge.
83. Impact agents were instructed by Catledge to alter and change the presentation of
the legal documents.
84. These closing packages included closing statements, rental agreements and
promissory notes, whereby prospective purchasers were obligated to pay the remaining 50% of
the purchase price for the fractional interests.
85. The final documents were the properly prepared compliant documents and clearly
superseded any non-compliant documentation created Catledge and Impact. For example, the so
called deposit agreement states that it is merely an expression of interest and is not a binding
document.
86. Although the Elliott Companies, via the Impact sales organization, were paid
almost $36 million in cash from sales, most of this has been paid out in commissions and legal
costs, and the costs of closings in the Dominican Republic.
75
356
87. The resort was approximately $8-9 million dollars in construction investments
away from completion. Construction re-started at Juan Dolio on March 5th, 2009 and was
expected to open an initial tower for owners in late 2010.
88. The original loans used to finance the Juan Dolio development have not been
settled due to cash flow problems caused by the payment of excessive commissions and
prepayment of commissions not collected from the Impact sales force, construction cost overruns
and Plaintiffs' litigation tactics.
89. Further, the timing of the global economic downturn in 2007 significantly
reduced demand for timeshare investments and their use, thus significantly negatively impacting
the ability to restructure loans, and obtain new sources of capital, and has caused purchasers to
withhold cash needed for operating the resort and fund construction.
90. Nevertheless, restructuring efforts were well under way, as SVJD had hired
Remax as sales agent, implementing a traditional sales agent force, with compliant selling
strategies and legal framework. Remax filed an affidavit with the court anticipating complete
sell out by Spring 2010 and ensuring completion and delivery of all products.
EMISV Management Fee
91. As is normal in the resort hotel management business, The Elliott's management
company, EMI Resorts Inc., a Turks and Caicos Islands corporation, received a 5% management
fee on the gross income earned by Sun Village Resort, Cofresi.
92. This management fee was approved by resolutions of the EMISVI shareholders.
Also, as is customary, EMI Resorts Inc. and/or EMI Resorts (S.V.G.) Inc. are generally paid a
management fee from each timeshare sale in an amount generally less than the sales commission
earned and paid to the actual sales force. In the case of EMISVI (Cofresi), all commissions and
76
356
fees paid to the Elliott Companies were approved by various EMISVI shareholders' resolutions.
In the case of SVJD, all such management fees were agreed to by Catledge and Impact.
Assignment of Promissory Notes to Aviati
93. After several months of offering Juan Dolio promissory note holders numerous
flexible options to honor their note obligation, including significant prepayment discounts of up
to 40% and even the ability to "turn in" and "consolidate" one of every three fractions where
multiple fractions were sold, SVJD, in order to raise cash and meet its construction
commitments, was forced to sell (factored) notes due from fractional purchasers to Inversiones
Aviati, S.A. ("Aviati"), an independent receivables financing company.
94. The Plaintiffs allege that Aviati is attempting to collect on these notes before the
condition stated in the fractional interest contracts.
95. This allegation is a misinterpretation of the facts and authorized representations
made to prospective purchasers of fractional timeshare interests in Juan Dolio.
96. Aviati is an arms length factoring company in which neither the Elliotts nor the
Corporate Defendants have any beneficial or ownership interest.
97. SVJD assigned the notes to Aviati on October 15th, 2008 based on a contract
dated September 9th, 2009.
98. SVJD received $450,000 over a period between then and February 2009 and these
monies have been applied to meet expenses of SJVD including obligations to its bankers.
99. SVJD was supposed to receive a percentage of what Aviati recoups. However,
Aviati did not act upon a single demand in the case of any purchaser and no note has been
'foreclosed.' The assignment agreement expired on May 9th, 2009 and Aviati did not exercise
their option to renew due to the litigation and misrepresentations made by the Impact sales force.
77
356
Relationship of Catledge and the Impact

Entities and Agents to the Elliott Companies
100. Fred and Derek Elliott were introduced to Catledge in 2004. Catledge was the
president of what was understood to be legitimate financial services company offering
mortgages, annuities, insurance, mutual funds and real estate/time share products out of
Henderson Nevada. Catledge owned and still owns a web of network marketing companies
known by various names such as Impact, Inc. ("Impact"), ImpactNetWorth.com, ImpactAmerica,
Impact-America.com, Impact Lending, Impact Corporate, Impact Holdings, Inc., Net Worth
Solutions, Inc., ("Solutions"); Impact Net Worth, LLC, ("Net Worth,", Impact Net Worth,
ImpactNetWorth.com (collectively "Impact Entities").
101. The introduction was made by a Michael Fitzpatrick, who was an investor of
EMISVI and EMI Cofresi Developments Inc. who knew the Elliotts wanted to expand the Sun
Village Resort.
102. Catledge represented to Derek Elliott, and later to Fred Elliott, that he had a
strong sales team and was fully experienced and licensed in sales of real estate products,
insurance, mortgages and annuities which the Elliotts and the Elliott Companies discovered later
to be a false and material representation upon which the Elliotts and the Elliott Companies
detrimentally relied when entering into contractual relationships with Catledge and the Impact
entities as described below.
103. In or around 2004-2007, certain of the Elliott Companies (which include the
Corporate Defendants) contracted with and otherwise allowed Catledge and the Impact Entities
and their representatives, through exclusive sales agreements, to offer and sell resort-related
vacation ownership products to individuals in various jurisdictions including the United States.
78
356
104. The vacation ownership products at issue in this case can generally be divided
between two locations and two products at each location. The two locations are Sun Village
Resort & Spa, Cofresi ("Cofresi"), and Sun Village Resort & Spa, Juan Dolio ("Juan Dolio").
105. Purchasers could purchase time-share interests known as "The Residence" or
fractional ownership interests at either Cofresi or Juan Dolio, referred to by the Plaintiffs as
"Passport" even though the term Passport was the creation of Catledge and the Impact Entities.
106. Regardless of which location and which product, all purchases of resort-related
vacation ownership products offered by the Elliott Companies came through Catledge and his
Impact Entities and agents. Thus, the fulcrum upon which the Plaintiffs' (and the Corporate
Defendants) damages rests is James Catledge and his Impact Entities and agents.
107. Importantly, as a requirement for Catledge and the Impact Entities and agents to
sell such resort-related vacation ownership products, Catledge and the Impact Entities were
required to hold valid state and federal regulatory licenses.
108. Catledge and the Impact agents made affirmative and fraudulent representations
and provided false documentation to the Elliott Companies and their attorneys that appeared to
show that Catledge and the Impact agents did have valid state and federal regulatory licenses
when, in fact, they did not.
109. However, in January 2006, the Elliott Companies discovered that Catledge and
the Impact Entities and agents did not have valid state and federal securities licenses, nor did
they have state time share licenses. The Elliott Companies further discovered that Catledge and
the Impact Entities and agents had provided false documentation to the Elliott Companies (upon
which the Elliott Companies reasonably relied) suggesting that Catledge and the Impact agents
did have valid regulatory licenses.
79
356
110. Specifically, the Corporate Defendants discovered that (1) Catledge's registration
with an NASD member brokerage firm was terminated as of July 13, 2005, (2) Impact was not
an NASD member brokerage firm, (3) neither Catledge nor any other member of Impact held a
current valid regulatory license.
111. Upon discovery of Catledge and the Impact agents' failure to hold proper
regulatory licenses, the Corporate Defendants demanded that Catledge and the Impact agents
immediately obtain proper valid regulatory licenses. However, after several promises made by
Catledge, and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the Corporate Defendants to prepare
compliant documentation (which Catledge and the Impact Entities failed to use) Catledge and
the Impact agents were ultimately unable or unwilling to get proper licensing.
112. Accordingly, on October 17, 2008, the Elliott Companies (called the Elliott
Group) issued a demand letter (the "Demand Letter") upon Catledge and the Impact Entities
pursuant to which the malfeasance discovered by the Elliott Companies was detailed.
113. Specifically, the Elliott Companies advised Catledge as follows:
As you know, Impact/Net Worth have "sold" considerable amount of Elliott

product over the last four or so years. In doing so, Impact/Net Worth and James
Catledge personally have received payment of tens of millions of dollars in
commissions.
It has become painfully obvious that these "sales" by Impact/Net Worth have
been grossly deficient, for the following reasons (without limitation):
1. Impact/Net Worth have failed to utilize compliant documentation

provided by Elliott Group and developed by Elliott Group at the cost of hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
2. Despite signed agreements to do so, Impact/Net Worth have

completely failed to obtain requisite broker and agent registrations required in
connection with such sales.
3. Impact/Net Worth have grossly misrepresented Elliott products to

purchasers.
80
356
4. Impact/Net Worth have engaged in reprehensible sales practices,

designed to maximize sales and commissions payable to Impact/Net Worth,
without regard to client needs. In this regard, a number of clients have been
encouraged by Impact/Net Worth to apply or lever virtually their entire asset base
for the purpose of purchasing such product.
5. Impact/Net Worth misrepresented and manipulated Elliott [Group]

into promoting offerings with an almost exclusive goal of maximizing
commissions to Impact/Net Worth.
6. Impact/Net Worth have libeled and slandered the Elliott Group

throughout and have actively impeded Elliott Group's efforts to raise funds.
7. Impact/Net Worth have acted in bad faith disregard of their

contractual and fiduciary obligations to the Elliott Group.
8. Impact/Net Worth's overall conduct in this regard has been

fraudulent.
As a result of the aforementioned malfeasance by Impact/Net Worth, the Elliott

Group faces massive costs in cleaning up the resulting mess. Examples of this
include dealings with the State of Idaho Department of Finance, which have cost
the Elliott Group $1.2 million to date, the Spalding Litigation in California, with
exposure to the Elliott Group of $5-10 million, and threatened rescissions by
scores of purchasers.
Elliott Group considers that James Catledge, as the directing mind of Impact/Net
Worth and the principal beneficiary of the malfeasance and frauds of Impact/Net
Worth, is personally liable for all liabilities and obligations of Impact/Net Worth.
Demand Letter, October 17, 2008. A true and correct copy of the Demand Letter is attached
hereto as "Exhibit A."
114. Through the Demand Letter, the Elliott Companies demanded Catledge and
Impact/Net Worth pay $29,000,000 as a result of the losses and damages incurred by the Elliott
Companies because of the malfeasance, breach of contract, negligence and bad faith of
Impact/Net Worth.
115. Upon information and belief, in October 2008, Catledge, in an effort to deflect
attention away from himself, and in order to take revenge on the Elliotts for asserting claims
81
356
against him, began a brutal campaign to discredit and destroy the Elliotts and their companies
with litigation and defamatory publicity spanning multiple jurisdictions, including this one.
Catledge and his Attorneys' Campaign to Discredit and Destroy the Elliotts
116. Upon information and belief, Catledge and Michael Diaz, Jr., managing partner of
Diaz Reus, decided to exploit a group of investors (Rick Hawker, Ruben Meja, David
Rocheford, Richard Smith, Norm Sorensen, Steve Thompson and Martha Valeria), who had
formed a committee that wished to sue the Elliotts, called the "EClient Committee" ("ECC").
117. The ECC – through the use of the internet (www.eclientscom.com) and telephone
solicitation – had been recruiting investors to join in a collective action against the Elliott
Defendants. James Catledge was a financial backer and participant – if not the mastermind as
well – of this group.
118. Initially, the ECC required each plaintiff investor to contribute one percent of
their investment to the ECC to pay attorneys’ fees.5
U.S. Litigation
119. Sometime in November, 2008, the ECC was convinced to retain the Diaz Reus
law firm to "investigate the actions of Derek & Fred Elliott (Elliotts) and their representatives in
connection with the sale of fractional real estate, residences products and other interests in the
Dominican Republic referred by Impact, Impact Net Worth, Net Worth Solutions and/or other
related entities and individuals."6
5
Subsequently, the amount increased to 1.5% and then 2%. After these contributions were insufficient to meet the
mounting attorneys’ fees and costs, the Diaz Reus law firm began sending the individual investors bills for their
pro-rated share of the outstanding fees and costs. The bills did not explain how the fees and costs were incurred or
how the division of fees and costs were allocated across the investors.
6
See The Elliott Defendants' Motion to Disqualify Counsel From Diaz Reus and Arnstein & Lehr, LLP for
Conflicts of Interest and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (the "Motion to Disqualify Counsel") [D.E. 617],
82
356
120. On November 13, 2008, Diaz wrote a letter to the members of the ECC informing
them that James Catledge and Impact officers Tom O’Hagan and John Thomson had contributed
to the ECC Retainer Fund and that the ECC would not sue these individuals or Impact in any
legal action.7
121. Over the ensuing four (4) months, the Diaz Reus team reviewed "hundreds of
thousands" of documents8 and used the ruse of criminal prosecution to turn Gregory Clark, the
Elliott Companies' former Chief Financial Officer against the Elliotts and improperly extract
confidential and privileged information from him regarding the operations of the Elliott Group of
Companies.9
122. In a February 17, 2009, conference call with investors and ECC Clients, Diaz told
the investors that he had proof that they were victimized by the Elliotts, and not Catledge:
There is overwhelming evidence that everyone that is on the phone is a victim of

a million, several million dollars, hundreds of millions of dollar, in fraud. We
have the evidence, not just the testimony. We have the actual documents that
support the allegations that you were victimized. Not by the sales groups but by
the Elliotts. We have worked tirelessly since around December when we first
received the documents, and continue to receive additional documents that
corroborate that you were victims of this massive fraud.
Motion to Disqualify Counsel, Transcript of February 17, 2009 Conference Call at 6,

contained in Declaration of Rob Buenaflor [D.E. 173-10], Exhibit 5 (emphasis added).
exhibit 4 at 1. A true and correct copy of exhibit 4 to the Motion to Disqualify Counsel is attached hereto as
"Exhibit B."
7
See Exhibit B, id at 4.
8
Declaration of Rob Buenaflor [D.E. 173-10], attached hereto as Exhibit C.
9
R. Farzad, Big Game Asset Hunters, attached hereto as Exhibit D.
83
356
123. During this same conference call, Richard Smith, head of the ECC, explained the
Diaz’ strategy: "[W]e’re taking the kind of action that when we launch this lawsuit it will be so
overwhelming that the battle will be won at the time we launch."10
124. On March 3, 2009, the ECC "launched" its litigation by having Klaus Hofmann
file a 53-page RICO complaint. The Hofmann complaint was signed by Hilda Piloto of Arnstein
& Lehr, LLP and not Michael Diaz or any attorney from his firm. Diaz used Piloto as a front to
avoid the appearance of impropriety arising from a conflict of interest between his then clients,
the innocent investors and Catledge and his Impact agent investors.
125. Subsequently, on March 13, 2009, Aurelio Aguilar and 414 former Impact agents
filed a RICO complaint that simply parroted the Hofmann complaint, including attaching
Hofmann’s contracts as exhibits.
126. On March 16, 2009, Diaz sent another letter to the 737 members of the ECC
informing them that he has filed two lawsuits "in an effort to assist you in recovering your
investment and protecting your interests in the fractional interests and or residence investment
products that you purchased in the Dominican Republic from the Elliotts."11 Diaz also advised
that he had been retained to represent Catledge in a Utah lawsuit and other actions and informed
his clients that Catledge has been "instrumental in providing . . .information" and that they have
"collective interests in this litigation against the Elliott Defendants."12
10
See Exhibit C, id.
11
Letter of March 16, 2009 from M. Diaz, attached hereto as Exhibit E.
12
See Exhibit B, id. at 4.
84
356
The Turks and Caicos Litigation
127. On March 3, 2009, a combination of so-called "innocent investors" (Klaus
Hoffman, David Rocheford, and Steve Thompson) and Impact agent investors (Norman
Sorensen) filed a class action in the Turks and Caicos Islands on behalf of "all other persons,
which I estimate to number about 1500, who form a class of persons who have contracted with
the Defendants concerning the acquisition of time shares, and fractional condominium interests
in resorts located in Puerto Plata and Juan Dolio in the Dominican Republic."13
128. This combination of purchasers also took an ex parte TRO obtained in the U.S. to
the Turks and Caicos Islands and used it to obtain an ex parte TRO from the Turks and Caicos
Islands court.
129. In obtaining the Turks and Caicos TRO, Plaintiffs and their counsel never
informed the Turks and Caicos court of the expiration of the U.S. TRO, and made additional
misrepresentations concerning the background and status of this matter. After the Turks and
Caicos court learned of the Plaintiffs’ deceit, on April 9, 2009 the court discharged the TRO by
an order in which the Chief Justice, in reference to the actions of the Hofmann and Aguilar
Plaintiffs, including their counsel, stating:
This case causes me some disquiet. The timing of an application of this nature
at the same time as a similar action in Florida, the failure to mention so
many clearly important material facts in an affidavit prepared by an
attorney specifically for an ex parte application, the subsequent manner in
which the order was publicized and the failure to take similar action to advise of
the amendment to the original order all add to that disquiet.
Motion to Disqualify, Reason for Decision dated April 20, 2009, attached as Exhibit 12.
(emphasis added).
13
Carlos Gonzalez (of the Diaz law firm) Affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit F.
85
356
Dominican Republic Litigation
130. On May 1, 2009 and May 29, 2009, the two groups of investors each obtained ex
parte TROs from two different Dominican Republic courts, freezing the Elliott Companies'
assets and endangering (and ultimately preventing) the completion of the Juan Dolio resort.14
131. In obtaining the TRO, Catledge and his counsel (the Diaz Law Firm) informed the
court that the United States and the Turks and Caicos Islands entered TROs, and never told the
court that this Court allowed the U.S. TRO to expire and that the Turks and Caicos Islands’ court
discharged its ex parte TRO.15
Effect of Hofmann and Aguilar Plaintiffs' Self-Destructive Legal Strategy
132. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs' (and former Aguilar Plaintiffs)
litigation strategy in the United States, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Dominican
Republic, the Cofresi and Juan Dolio properties have been foreclosed with massive loss of value
to the Corporate Defendants and, indeed, the Plaintiffs.
133. On September 10, 2009, Banco del Progresso and Banco Reservas successfully
foreclosed on their mortgage in the sum of $7.7 million and took possession of the Juan Dolio
property which had been appraised in April 2009 at $60,830,221.00.
134. On October 7, 2009, Banco Leon successfully foreclosed on its loan which was
secured by the Cofresi property. The winning bidder in the auction sale paid $4.5 million for the
property which had been appraised only months before in July 2009 at $58,084,617.71.
14
Dominican Republic TRO (translation) at 23, 37, 43, and 51, attached hereto as Compositie Exhibit G.
15
See id.
86
356
135. As a result of the disastrous legal strategy employed by Plaintiffs, the entire
equity value of the Corporate Defendants has been obliterated, thus destroying any chance of
recovery for the Plaintiffs from the sale of Corporate Defendant assets.16
Plaintiffs' Counsel Refuses to Sue Catledge and the Impact Entities and Agents
136. In lawsuits around the country, Catledge and his agents have been sued for
participating in an alleged "ponzi scheme" for securities fraud, but not here.
137. As of the time of this filing, counsel for the remaining Plaintiffs (formerly
referred to as the Hofmann Plaintiffs) has steadfastly refused to sue Catledge and the Impact
Entities and agents, even though it is Catledge and the Impact Entities who have direct privity
with the Plaintiffs!
138. Putting aside for the moment the obvious conflict of interest that would arise were
Plaintiffs' counsel to sue Catledge and the Impact Entities and agents, this refusal is suspicious
because Plaintiffs have adopted the Special Master's Report [D.E. 832] pursuant to which the
Special Master identified wrong-doing perpetrated by Catledge and the Impact Entities.
139. Obviously, something is very wrong when Plaintiffs' counsel refuses to sue the
individuals and entities in actual privity with the Plaintiffs, and whom have been singled out as
having been the "main architect" of a "ponzi-like" scheme which allegedly caused millions in
damages to such Plaintiffs.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have Failed to Join all Necessary and/or Indispensable Parties
140. The damages of which Plaintiffs complain were caused in whole or in part by
non-parties whom Plaintiffs have failed to join in this action and who are necessary and/or
16
The foreclosure auction sale of Cofresi is currently under appeal in the Dominican Republic.
87
356
indispensible parties pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 19. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to join
James B. Catledge ("Catledge") and his Impact-related companies and agents (the "Catledge
Group") whom are responsible for the Plaintiffs' losses.
141. The following individuals and entities, upon information, investigation and belief
comprise the necessary and/or indispensable parties that comprise the Catledge Group for the
purposes of this Affirmative Defense:
142. Companies:
a. Impact, Inc., a Nevada corporation d/b/a ImpactNetWorth.com, d/b/a
ImpactAmerica, d/b/a Impact-America.com, d/b/a Impact Lending, d/b/a Impact
Corporate, d/b/a Impact Holdings, Inc.("Impact");
b. Net Worth Solutions, Inc., ("Solutions");
c. Impact Net Worth, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("Net Worth"
collectively with Impact and Solutions, the "Impact Entities") d/b/a Impact Net
Worth, d/b/a ImpactNetWorth.com.
d. Power Millennium Real Estate;
e. Trust Company of the Pacific; and
f. Financial Broker Group
143. Individuals
a. James B. Catledge, Founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of Impact,
Solutions and Managing Member of Net Worth;
b. Jerome F. Gerber, Chief Financial Officer, Impact, Solutions and Net Worth
(2003 – 2008);
88
356
c. David Brimley, Vice President, Impact Lending, Impact, Solutions and Net Worth
(2004 – 2007); Also brokered mortgages for Impact, Net Worth and Solutions
through Meridias Capital, CMO (2007 – 02/2008);
d. Tom O'Hagan, Vice President, Compliance, Net Worth (04/2006 – 10/2007);
Chief Operating Officer, Net Worth and Solutions (11/2007 – 11/2008) Honorary
Board Member, Impact, Net Worth and Solutions;
e. Levi Rogers, Vice President, Field Operations, Net Worth (03/2005 – 07/2007);
Honorary Board Member, Impact, Net Worth and Solutions, Silver Marketing
Advisor (70% Contract), Impact, Net Worth and Solutions;
f. Brent Goodrich, Chief Operating Officer (03/2007 – 01/2008) Net Worth and
Solutions; Chief Financial Officer (02/2008 – 08/2008) Solutions;
g. Roger Walser, Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions; received $20,000 payment from James Catledge then rallied potential
plaintiffs against Corporate Defendants; President and CEO of Power Millennium
Real Estate;
h. John Thompson, Sr., Permanent and Senior Board Member and Senior Marketing
Advisor (80% Contract), Impact, Net Worth and Solutions;
i. Linda Thompson, , Silver Marketing Advisor (70% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
j. Barbara Nagel, Permanent Board Member and Silver Marketing Advisor (70%
Contract), Impact, Net Worth and Solutions;
k. Steve Cabezud, Permanent Board Member and Senior Marketing Advisor (80%
Contract), Impact – Top Money Earner, Net Worth, Solutions;
89
356
l. Norm Sorensen, Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
m. Richard Smith, Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
n. Jeff Morgan, Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
o. Hans Braun, Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
p. Mark Craner Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
q. Garnet Hyde, Jr. Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
r. Peter Jeong Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
s. Dustin Simpson Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
t. Greg Aldrich Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
u. Janet Faust Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
v. Michael Gibson Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
90
356
w. Roy Anderson Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
x. Israel Chavez Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
y. Martha Valencia Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
z. Carlos Soria Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Net Worth and
Solutions;
aa. Frank Orcino, Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Impact, Net Worth
and Solutions, Board Member;
bb. Margaret Currie, Qualified Marketing Advisor (65% Contract), Impact, Net
Worth and Solutions;
cc. Francisco Reyes, Silver Marketing Advisor (70% Contract), Impact, Net Worth
and Solutions, Board Member, Net Worth and Solutions, Leader of Majority of
Spanish Agents
dd. Robert Vaughan, Financial Broker Group, Branch Manager
Impact/Net Worth Hierarchy
144. Upon information and belief, Catledge operates Impact as a network marketing
company. Much like a pyramid scheme, Impact has a tiered compensation system which has a
"promotion level" and an "ownership" level. Impact's compensation plan identified 10 levels of
promotion potential, with each level receiving compensation for products and services sold or
referred to them for sale by incoming associates:
91
356
Promotional Level
a. Referral Associate, personal commission of 10%;
b. Associate, personal commission of 32.5%;
c. Impact Certified Trainer (ICT), personal commission of 40%; must
complete personal "CNA" and hire five Associates;
d. Impact Certified Leader (ICL), personal commission of 50%, Must own
product, turn in top 40 dream list, have five guests attend a "BPM, complete five
training sales and promote one ICT;
Ownership Level
e. Qualified Marketing Advisor (QMA), personal commission of 65%;
ICT/ICL qualified, life and real estate license required.17 5 recruits (3 Direct legs)
Exchange Leg – selected by the promoting QMA 75,000 base points rolling 13
weekly cycles;
f. Silver QMA, personal commission of 75%, Build 3 QMAs Direct,
125,000 Base thru 1st points in rolling 13 weekly cycles, life and real estate license
required;
g. Senior Marketing Advisor (SMA), personal commission of 80%, Build 10
QMAs Direct, 300,000 Base thru 1st points in rolling 13 weekly cycles, life and real
estate license required;
17
Upon information and belief, none of the Impact agents at any "Ownership Level" actually obtained real estate
licenses. Once this was discovered by the Corporate Defendants, this, among other reasons including
misrepresentations regarding securities and time share licensing, led the Corporate Defendants to terminate the
relationship with Catledge and the Impact Entities in June 2008. A demand letter was sent to Catledge in October
2008, and shortly thereafter Catledge began his campaign against the Elliotts and the Corporate Defendants
culminating in the instant lawsuit (among others brought in the Turks & Caicos Islands and the Dominican
Republic).
92
356
h. National Marketing Advisor (NMA), personal commission of 85%, Build
20 QMAs Direct, 750,000 Base through 1st points in rolling 13 weekly cycles, life
and real estate license required; and
145. Marketing Vice President (MVP), personal commission of 90%, Build 35 QMAs
Direct, 1.2 Million Base through 1st points in rolling 13 weekly cycles, life and real estate
license required.
146. Catledge and the Impact agents listed above as indispensable parties are all
members of the "Ownership Level" of the Impact Entities, and as "owners," they are responsible
for the direct and indirect malfeasance of those below them in the Impact/Net Worth corporate
structure.
Plaintiffs Effectively Admit that Catledge and the Impact Entities and
Agents are Indispensible Parties by Adopting the Special Master's Report
147. On November 25, 2009, the Plaintiffs adopted the Special Master's Report and
Recommendation Following Preliminary Forensic Analysis (the "Report") [D.E. 832] in toto.
[D.E. 851].18 Accordingly, by such adoption, the Plaintiffs have admitted that they agree with
the Special Master's observations and preliminary findings regarding Catledge and the Impact
Entities and agents which have been inexplicably excluded from the prior complaint or the
Amended Complaint.
148. The Amended Complaint (which is substantively no different than the original
complaint) failed to join or "consolidate" Catledge and the Impact Entities and agents.
149. Upon information and belief, the reason Plaintiffs' counsel has failed to join
Catledge and the Impact Entities and agents is because Catledge and his attorneys instigated and
93
356
directed the litigation strategy against the Elliotts and the Corporate Defendants in a pre-emptive
strike to deflect attention away from the fact that the Elliotts and the Corporate Defendants were
gearing up litigation against Catledge and the Impact Entities and agents as described above.
150. As a result of Plaintiffs' failure to join Catledge and the Impact Entities and agents
as necessary and indispensable parties to the Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint
should be dismissed.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFEENSE
Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted
COUNT I
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations ("RICO"), Title 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)
151. Count I fails to state a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
152. Plaintiffs have failed to plead their civil RICO claims with sufficient precision
regarding (1) the statement, documents or misrepresentations the individual Corporate
Defendants allegedly made to each of the Plaintiffs; (2) the time and place of, and person
responsible for such statements by the Corporate Defendants to each of the Plaintiffs; (3) the
content and manner in which the alleged misrepresentations were made; and (4) what the
Corporate Defendants allegedly gained from such alleged misrepresentations as required by Rule
9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
153. Plaintiffs further failed to plead or prove (1) the existence of an enterprise, (2)
that the Corporate Defendants were "employed by" or "associated with" the enterprise, (3) that
18
Although the Corporate Defendants object to the factual and legal conclusions made by the Special Master in his
Report, the Plaintiffs, by their adoption of his Report, are estopped from arguing against the joinder of Catledge and
the Impact Entities and agents as indispensible parties to this action.
94
356
the Corporate Defendants' participated in the conduct of the enterprises' affairs, and (4) that this
participation was through a pattern of racketeering.
154. Importantly, as noted herein, this is not a class action case, and each Plaintiff
must plead with sufficient particularity with respect to their individual claims. In this case,
Plaintiffs have failed to attach any documentation specific to any Plaintiff other than Klaus
Hoffman, and even that documentation does not inform which Corporate Defendant made
misrepresentations to any particular Plaintiff. Indeed, the documentation attached to the
Amended Complaint, or held at Plaintiffs' counsels' offices19 varies with each Plaintiff to the
point where it would be impossible for the Corporate Defendants to reasonably respond to each
claim, especially in light of the fact that the Corporate Defendants have no access to their own
books and records as a result of the Special Master/ Monitor having seized same. However,
what is clear is that the only thing the Plaintiffs' purchase documents show (to the extent
Plaintiffs have any documents) is the connection between the Plaintiffs and Impact Entities and
agents – they do not show a connection between the Plaintiffs and which Corporate Defendants
allegedly caused the individual Plaintiff harm.
155. Finally, pursuant to this Court's Omnibus Order Regarding Report and
Recommendations and Following Hearing ("Realignment Order") [D.E. 714], the Court
19
Counsel for the Corporate Defendants reviewed what Plaintiffs counsel' considered purchase documents for the
Plaintiffs at Plaintiffs' counsel's offices on January 27, 2010 for approximately 4 hours but will need to reschedule a
time to review the documents again, assuming the Court does not order turnover of the purchase documents to the
Corporate Defendants. However, during the review, it became painfully clear that Plaintiffs' counsel does not have
sufficient documentation to support causes of action against the Corporate Defendants, and in fact, Plaintiffs had no
documentation whatsoever for at least 6 Plaintiffs, and only an intake form from Impact for many other Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs must be required to turn over copies of their "purchase documents" so that the Corporate
Defendants can review same.
95
356
dismissed the "Aguilar Plaintiffs"20 Complaint, and gave the "Aguilar Plaintiffs" twenty days
from Judge McAliley's final Report and Recommendation on alignment and disqualification
precisely because the Aguilar Plaintiffs failed to state a RICO claim. Importantly, the Court
recognized that the Hofmann Complaint (at that time) had only one plaintiff, whereas the Aguilar
Plaintiffs numbered in the hundreds. The Court further ruled that the Aguilar Complaint failed
to state a claim because it failed to allege each individual Aguilar Plaintiffs' interests, ownership
and claims of each Aguilar Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court observed that the Aguilar Complaint
and the Hofmann Complaint were "virtually identical."
156. Pursuant to the Realignment Order, the Court granted the Hofmann Plaintiffs'
motion to intervene [D.E. 4] "for the purposes of filing a consolidated complaint setting forth
with specificity the interests, ownership and claims of each intervenor." [D.E. 714].
157. However, the Plaintiffs have woefully failed to plead a civil RICO cause of
action. In addition, the actions which allegedly make up this RICO cause of action occurred
wholly without the United States, and therefore United States RICO laws are unavailing to the
Plaintiffs.
158. Accordingly, Count I of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
COUNT II
Conspiracy to Violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) in Violation of §1962(d)
159. Count II fails to state a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).
160. RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) makes it unlawful to conspire to violate any of the
substantive provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b) and (c). Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
the Corporate Defendants agreed to participate, or indeed participated, in a RICO conspiracy.
20
The Aguilar Plaintiffs (Case No. 09-20657) (S.D.Fla.) were comprised of parties such as Catledge and the Impact
Entities and agents that were the subject of a "realignment" inquiry which was referred to Magistrate Judge
96
356
161. An agreement to participate in a RICO conspiracy can be shown in one of two
ways: (1) by showing an agreement on an overall objective; or (2) by showing the Corporate
Defendants agreed to commit two predicate acts. The Amended Complaint proves neither.
Instead, the Amended Complaint merely repeats general and conclusory allegations that the
Corporate Defendants conspired to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity. Moreover, the
Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently plead an overt act in furtherance of the alleged RICO
conspiracy that caused injury to Plaintiffs.
162. In addition, the RICO conspiracy claims are deficient because they fail to allege
with particularity each Corporate Defendants' allegedly criminal conduct.
163. Plaintiffs have further failed to plead their RICO conspiracy claims with sufficient
precision regarding (1) the statement, documents or misrepresentations the individual Corporate
Defendants allegedly made to each of the Plaintiffs; (2) the time and place of, and person
responsible for such statements by the Corporate Defendants to each of the Plaintiffs; (3) the
content and manner in which the alleged misrepresentations were made; and (4) what the
Corporate Defendants allegedly gained from such alleged misrepresentations as required by Rule
9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
164. In addition, the actions which allegedly make up this RICO cause of action
occurred wholly without the United States, and therefore United States RICO laws are
unavailing to the Plaintiffs.
165. Accordingly, Count II of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
McAliley pursuant to the Court's Order [D.E. 714].
97
356
COUNT III
Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Florida Statute §771.103
166. Count III fails to state a claim pursuant to Florida Statute §771.103.
167. Because Florida's RICO Act is patterned off of the federal RICO Act, Florida
looks to federal authorities when construing its own RICO statute. For the reasons described
above, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to the federal RICO statute. As
such, the Amended Complaint also fails to state a claim pursuant to Florida's Rico statue for the
reasons described above regarding Count I.
168. In addition, the actions which allegedly make up the RICO cause of action
occurred wholly without the United States and the state of Florida, and therefore United States
RICO laws are unavailing to the Plaintiffs.
169. Accordingly, Count III of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
COUNT IV
Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Florida Statute §772.103
170. Count IV fails to state a claim pursuant to Florida Statute §772.103.
171. Because Florida's RICO Act is patterned off of the federal RICO Act, Florida
looks to federal authorities when construing its own RICO statute. For the reasons described
above, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to the federal RICO statute. As
such, the Amended Complaint also fails to state a claim pursuant to Florida's Rico statute for the
reasons described above regarding Count II.
172. In addition, the actions which allegedly make up the RICO cause of action
occurred wholly without the United States and the state of Florida, and therefore United States
RICO laws are unavailing to the Plaintiffs.
173. Accordingly, Count IV of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
98
356
COUNT V
Breach of Contract
174. Count V fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because Plaintiffs
have failed to plead with sufficient particularity which Plaintiff has privity of contract with
which Corporate Defendant.
175. Accordingly, Count V of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed, or
amended to include documentation supporting a contractual relationship between each Plaintiff
and the respective Corporate Defendants, to the extent such documentation exists.
COUNT VI
Unjust Enrichment
176. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment.
177. Claims for unjust enrichment are quasi-contractual in nature and only exist where
an express contract does not exist. Put differently, claims for unjust enrichment must be
dismissed where an express contract controls the relationship between the parties.
178. In this case, all of the Plaintiffs have argued that they have either purchased EMI
Residence product or fractional ownership interest product – referred to by the Plaintiffs as
"Passport" products which were governed by contract.
179. Accordingly, Count VI of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
COUNT VII
Fraud in the Inducement
180. Count VII of the Amended Complaint fails to state allegations of fraud with
respect to each Plaintiff and each Corporate Defendant with sufficient (or any) particularity, and
therefore Count VII fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and must therefore be
dismissed.
99
356
181. For the reasons set forth above with respect to RICO claims which are also
subject to a heightened pleading standard, Count VII must likewise be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
COUNT VIII
Injunctive Relief
182. Count VIII fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
183. Plaintiffs have failed to plead, much less prove that they have been irreparably
harmed by the actions of the Corporate Defendants. Instead, they have only shown (to the extent
they have shown anything) that they have been harmed by the machinations of Catledge and the
Impact Entities and agents.
184. Plaintiffs have failed to plead, much less prove that the damages they assert
cannot be cured with money damages. Indeed, the converse is true, because the damages
complained of by Plaintiffs can be cured by money damages.
185. Plaintiffs have not plead, much less proven that they have an inadequate remedy
at law.
186. Accordingly, Count VIII should be dismissed.
COUNT X
Constructive Trust
187. Count X of the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
188. Plaintiffs fail to plead, much less prove, that any of the Corporate Defendants
promised anything other than what was expressly provided for in the controlling contractual
documents governing the relationship between the parties. In fact, Plaintiffs relied upon
100
356
promises made by Catledge and his Impact Entities and agents that turned out to be grossly
incorrect and without the knowledge or direction of any Corporate Defendant.
189. Any transfers from Plaintiffs to any Corporate Defendants came through Catledge
and his Impact Entities and agents, and such transfers were made in reliance on representations
made by those agents, not the Corporate Defendants, and Plaintiffs fail to plead, much less
prove, otherwise.
190. Plaintiffs fail to plead, much less prove, the existence of a confidential
relationship between Plaintiffs and any of the Corporate Defendants.
191. Finally, Plaintiffs fail to plead unjust enrichment (for they cannot), since express
contracts govern any relationship between a Plaintiff and any Corporate Defendant, thus
rendering any claims for unjust enrichment unavailing to Plaintiffs.
192. Accordingly, Count X of the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
COUNT XII
Promissory Estoppel
193. Count XII of the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
194. Plaintiffs masquerade conclusory allegations as fact and utterly fail to plead,
much less prove when, where, how and which Corporate Defendant made representations to
Plaintiffs that they did not have to pay on their promissory notes until after the Juan Dolio Hotel
was completed. In fact, this allegation stands in stark contract to the terms of the Notes which
provide that installment payments became due in either May or November of 2008. Nowhere
within the four corners of any promissory note corroborates the baseless and specious allegation
made by the Plaintiffs in Count XII.
101
356
195. Plaintiffs fail to state with specificity the terms and time of the alleged "promise"
made by a Corporate Defendants to delay receipt of payment of the contractually stated
installment payments on the promissory notes.
196. Plaintiffs have failed to provide "clear and convincing evidence" of such promise.
197. Plaintiffs further fail to state a cause of action for promissory estoppel as, by their
own admission, an express contract – the respective promissory notes – exist.
198. Plaintiffs have failed to plead, much less prove that Plaintiffs reliance on the
alleged illusory promise was reasonable in light of the express terms of the promissory notes.
199. Accordingly, Count XII of the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
COUNT XIV
Civil Conspiracy
200. For the reasons set forth above with respect to the Plaintiffs' failure to state a
claim for RICO violations and fraud, Count XIV fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
201. Accordingly, Count XIV of the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
COUNT XV
False and Misleading Advertising
202. Count XV fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
203. The Plaintiffs allege in Count XV of the Amended Complaint that the "Elliott
Group Defendants" made material and significant representations through its advertising about
the timeshare and fractional ownership real estate products to induce their purchase. However,
the Plaintiffs have not alleged with sufficient particularity, much less proven, that any Corporate
Defendant engaged in false and misleading advertising. In fact, the Plaintiffs know full well that
it was Catledge and his Impact Entities and agents that had an exclusive agreement with the
102
356
Corporate Defendants and controlled all marketing and sales efforts to the Plaintiffs. Nothing in
the Amended Complaint alleges otherwise.
204. Accordingly, Count XV of the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
Failure to State a Claim for Lack of Documentation
205. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert, at fn. 1, page 43 as follows:
Copies of one Plaintiffs' purchase documents are attached as exhibits to this

amended complaint. Attaching all Plaintiffs' documents is extremely voluminous.
In addition, the parties are in possession of all relevant purchase documents as
they should have been kept in the ordinary course of business. To the extent any
party claims not to be in possession of each Plaintiffs' purchase documents, the
documents are available for review and inspection at the undersigned's office at a
mutually convenient date and time.
Amended Complaint, fn. 1.
206. As it turns out, this statement is blatantly and demonstrably false for a couple of
reasons:
207. First, the Corporate Defendants are not in possession of any relevant purchase
documents, because the Special Master has custody and control of same, and as a result
Corporate Defendants have no access thereto as Plaintiffs are unquestionably aware.
208. Second, counsel for the Corporate Defendants did attempt to review the alleged
purchase documents supposedly held by Plaintiffs' counsel. Although counsel for the Corporate
Defendants was unable to review all of the files held by Plaintiffs' counsel, one thing became
crystal clear as a result of the preliminary review: Plaintiffs' counsel does not have all or even
most of the proper purchase documents that would support a claim for relief before this Court.
209. For example, counsel for the Corporate Defendants discovered the following
deficiencies, without limitation, during his preliminary review:
103
356
a. Duane Barney. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Duane Barney
"purchased property from the Elliotts." First, "the Elliotts" did not sell property, so the
statement is demonstrably incorrect. Second, upon inspection, counsel for the Corporate
Defendants discovered that Plaintiffs' counsel has no documentation whatsoever
evidencing proof of a contractual relationship between this Plaintiff and the Corporate
Defendants.
b. Laura Ann Olsen Barney. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Laura
Ann Olsen Barney "purchased property from the Elliotts." First, the Elliotts did not sell
property, so the statement is demonstrably incorrect. Second, upon inspection, counsel
for the Corporate Defendants discovered that Plaintiffs' counsel has no documentation
whatsoever evidencing proof of a contractual relationship between this Plaintiff and the
c. Stephen Biddulph. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Stephen
Biddulph purchased "one Maxim Bungalows Passport Superior, Cofresi." However,
upon inspection, counsel for the Corporate Defendants discovered that Plaintiffs' counsel
has no documentation whatsoever evidencing proof of a contractual relationship between
this Plaintiff and the Corporate Defendants.
d. Robert Garcia Ceja. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Robert Garcia
Ceja "purchased units." First, this description is utterly devoid of any specificity as to
what type of product was allegedly purchased. Second, upon inspection, counsel for the
Corporate Defendants discovered that Plaintiffs' counsel has no documentation
whatsoever evidencing proof of a contractual relationship between this Plaintiff and the
104
356
e. William Matz. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, William Matz
"purchased investments." First, this description is utterly devoid of any specificity as to
what type of product was allegedly purchased and where. Second, upon inspection,
counsel for the Corporate Defendants discovered that Plaintiffs' counsel has no
documentation whatsoever evidencing proof of a contractual relationship between this
Plaintiff and the Corporate Defendants.
f. Erica Matz. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Erica Matz (mentioned
with William Matz) "purchased investments." First, this description is utterly devoid of
any specificity as to what type of product was allegedly purchased and where. Second,
g. Martha Spence. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Martha Spence
"purchased property." First, there is no description of what property was sold and by
whom and where. Second, "the Elliotts" did not sell property, so even assuming the
allegation is meant to refer to the Elliotts, the statement is demonstrably incorrect. Third,
h. Jeffrey Wolf. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Jeffrey Wolf
purchased "two units." First, this description is utterly devoid of any specificity as to
what type of product was allegedly purchased and where. Second, upon inspection,
counsel for the Corporate Defendants discovered that Plaintiffs' counsel has no
105
356
documentation whatsoever evidencing proof of a contractual relationship between this
Plaintiff and the Corporate Defendants.
i. Lolita Wolf. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Lolita Wolf
(mentioned with Jeffrey Wolf) purchased "two units." First, this description is utterly
devoid of any specificity as to what type of product was allegedly purchased and where.
Second, upon inspection, counsel for the Corporate Defendants discovered that Plaintiffs'
counsel has no documentation whatsoever evidencing proof of a contractual relationship
between this Plaintiff and the Corporate Defendants.
210. In many other instances too numerous to mention (for the sake of brevity)
Plaintiffs counsel has nothing more than a Business Submission Form from one of the Impact
Entities, which does not indicate in any manner whatsoever a contractual relationship that was
concluded between the individual Plaintiff and the Corporate Defendants.
211. Regardless, just from the inspection reference above, the hollow nature of
Plaintiffs' documentary support is revealed. Clearly, Plaintiffs have attempted to skirt their
pleading obligations by making references to "voluminous" documents that, in fact, in some
cases do not even exist. Moreover, incredibly, in some cases the Plaintiffs argue that
"documentation is pending" nearly a year after this action was commenced. See e.g., Pauline
Traub, Amended Complaint at ¶ nnnnn, pg. 28.
212. Additionally, some of the information for the alleged Plaintiffs is run together
such that it is impossible to know exactly what Plaintiffs are claiming as the product purchased.
For example, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint inexplicably and confusingly combines information
for Ramiro Efrain and Silva Barrera such that it is impossible to know exactly what product has
been purchased by either Ramiro Efrain or Silva Barrera.
106
356
213. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint, at the very minimum, must be amended to
include copies of the relevant and legally binding purchase documents for each and every
Plaintiff. Until such documents are provided to the Corporate Defendants, the Corporate
Defendants are unable to frame a response to the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs in the
Amended Complaint.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
214. Klaus Hofmann, upon information and belief, at all material times hereto, is a
resident of Park City, Utah. None of the other intervenor plaintiffs that ultimately came to be
known, with Hofmann as the "Hofmann Plaintiffs" and then "Plaintiffs" herein reside in the state
of Florida. There is no long-arm jurisdiction, and no minimum contacts to support the notions of
fair play and justice of the Due Process Clause.
215. Plaintiffs assert that Plaintiff Hofmann resides in Miramar Beach, Florida;
however, Miramar Beach is located in the panhandle of Florida in Destin. Thus, Plaintiff
Hofmann has no minimum contact with the Southern District of Florida.
216. The Corporate Defendants are companies organized in foreign jurisdictions such
as the Dominican Republic, Canada, Turks and Caicos Islands, St. Vincent and the Grenadines
and Gibraltar. The Corporate Defendants have no minimum contacts with the Southern District
of Florida.
217. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
107
356
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Improper Venue
218. Plaintiff Klaus Hofmann ("Hofmann"), and upon information and belief many
other Plaintiffs, flew to the Dominican Republic where he allegedly entered into certain
international contracts for the purchase of vacation ownership products from certain of the
Corporate Defendants (by way of his relationship with Catledge and his Impact Entities and
agents).
219. In the contracts entered into, Hofmann agreed that if he had a dispute with respect
to the contract, he would adjudicate the dispute in the Turks and Caicos Islands pursuant to
Turks and Caicos Islands law.
220. Specifically, Hofmann entered into a "Rental Agreement" with EMISVI which
provides in pertinent part:
This Agreement and its application shall be governed by and construed in

accordance with the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands, British West Indies.
The parties expressly submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the
Turks and Caicos Islands, irrevocably waiving the right to any other jurisdiction
to which they may be entitled by their present or future domicile.
Rental Agreement at 14, (VIL2), attached hereto as "Exhibit H."
221. Similarly, Hofmann entered into a "Vacation Interval Ownership Agreement"
with Sun Village Juan Dolio Inc. ("SVJD") that states in pertinent part:
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Turks and
Caicos Islands, British West Indies for all matters in which a court of competent jurisdiction in
the Turks and Caicos Islands will assume jurisdiction.
Vacation Interval Ownership Agreement at 14 (17.8), attached hereto as "Exhibit I."
108
356
222. Since Hofmann, and upon information and belief21 other Plaintiffs (to the extent
they can provide appropriate documentation evidencing a contractual relationship between
themselves and the Corporate Defendants) failed to adhere to the forum selection clause of the
Rental Agreement or the Vacation Interval Ownership Agreement, venue for him as well as all
Plaintiffs is improper in this jurisdiction, and the Court should accordingly dismiss the Amended
Complaint.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Multifarious and Improperly Joined Parties
223. The Amended Complaint must be dismissed or Plaintiffs' causes of action
severed, as they have been improperly joined in this action.
224. Plaintiffs have alleged a RICO cause of action, and have further asserted the
existence of a "ponzi" or "ponzi-like" scheme perpetrated by the Elliotts and the Corporate
Defendants. However, at bottom, the Amended Complaint is a discordant amalgam of legal
conclusions with few specific factual allegations tying individual Plaintiffs to the Corporate
Defendants. The Amended Complaint does not allege with specificity how much was invested
or lost by any of these individuals, because the operative documents are not attached.
225. Moreover, the Amended Complaint never alleges when and under what
circumstances the individual transactions occurred. Instead, the Amended Complaint attempts to
add these numerous Plaintiffs as some type of unified, collective plaintiff seeking collective
damages for a collective wrong.
21
As previously stated, Corporate Defendants have no access to their books and records which have been seized by
the Special Master. Accordingly, the Corporate Defendants reserve the right to amend their affirmative defenses
after review of such books and records, or after production by the Plaintiffs.
109
356
226. As a collective pleading, the Amended Complaint cannot be amended to state a
cause of action.
227. As set forth, the Plaintiffs' claims are merely a jumble of conclusory allegations
that entirely fail to meet the minimum pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, do not state causes of action for which they may seek relief, and must therefore
be dismissed.
228. The Plaintiffs allegations against all of the Corporate Defendants are made in the
aggregate and, consequently, each Corporate Defendant is prevented from evaluating whether an
individual Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim against that particular Corporate Defendant.
229. Accordingly, since the Plaintiffs improperly commingled these multifarious
Plaintiffs and Corporate Defendants, all counts must be dismissed.
230. In connection with this pleading deficiency, the Corporate Defendants are unable
to properly formulate a response without distinguishing the allegations that apply to particular
Plaintiff and a particular Corporate Defendant.
231. All the counts directed to the Corporate Defendants are vague, ambiguous and
confusing; thus making it impossible for the Corporate Defendants to address the claims asserted
by Plaintiffs in any substantive manner.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Forum Non Conveniens
232. The Amended Complaint must be dismissed on the basis of forum non
conveniens.
233. The Plaintiffs agreed to have their disputes adjudicated in the Turks and Caicos
Islands.
110
356
234. Plaintiff Hofmann filed a parallel action in the Turks and Caicos Islands pursuant
to Turks and Caicos Islands law and obtained a Mareva injunction (later thrown out) from the
Turks and Caicos Islands court and also commenced an action against the Elliotts and their
Companies in the Dominican Republic for injunctive relief.
235. Many of the Corporate Defendants are incorporated or organized under the laws
of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
236. Plaintiffs signed contractual obligations in the Dominican Republic.
237. The Corporate Defendants' property (now foreclosed) is in the Dominican
Republic.
238. Many of the Corporate Defendants are incorporated or organized under the laws
of the Dominican Republic.
239. The majority of witnesses and documents reside in the Dominican Republic.
240. None of the Plaintiffs reside in Florida, and the only Plaintiff that even attempts
to assert contacts with the state of Florida is Plaintiff Hofmann who actually, upon information
and belief, resides in Utah.
241. The only connection with the state of Florida is Plaintiffs' counsel, and that does
not count.
242. Clearly, this case should be tried in either the Dominican Republic or the Turks
and Caicos Islands.
243. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed on the basis of forum
non conveniens.
111
356
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Estoppel
244. Plaintiffs who purchased fractional ownership interests and who executed
promissory notes for the benefit of the Corporate Defendants are estopped from disregarding
such commitments to pay on their promissory notes due to their own negligence in allowing the
impairment of the Corporate Defendants' assets through a reckless litigation strategy designed to
destroy the equity value of such assets described above. Plaintiffs are further estopped from
enforcing any contracts with any Corporate Defendants as a result of their failure to execute all
of the required compliant documentation required by the Corporate Defendants. Plaintiffs failed
to conduct proper due diligence relating to such contracts because Plaintiffs failed to challenge
Catledge and his Impact Entities and agents when they were not provided with the compliant
documentation prepared by the Corporate Defendants.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Mitigate Damages
245. To the extent Plaintiffs have suffered any alleged loss or harm, by their actions, as
alleged above, Plaintiffs have failed to act reasonably to mitigate any such loss or harm, which
precludes them from seeking relief in this case.
246. The Corporate Defendants preserve their denial of liability and the existence of
damages caused to the Plaintiffs by them.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Impairment of Collateral
247. Any claim against the Corporate Defendants must be discharged to the extent of
the value of the collateral was impaired due to Plaintiffs' gross negligence with respect to their
112
356
litigation strategy designed to destroy the Corporate Defendants and which led to the foreclosure
of the Cofresi and Juan Dolio properties, leading to net loss of over $100 million in equity as
described above.
248. The Corporate Defendants preserve their denial of liability and the existence of
damages caused to the Plaintiffs by the Corporate Defendants.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Unclean Hands
249. By their actions described above, Plaintiffs have unclean hands and are thus
barred from recovering under any legal or equitable theory of law set forth in the Amended
Complaint.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Lack of Consideration
250. As more fully described above, although Plaintiffs who purchased fractional
ownership interests paid for half of the purchase price upon closing, the remainder of the
purchase price was financed through promissory notes made payable to the benefit of certain of
the Corporate Defendants.
251. Contemporaneously with the closing of such purchases and the issuance of such
promissory notes, even though only half of the purchase price was actually paid to certain of the
Corporate Defendants, commissions were paid to Catledge and his Impact Entities and agents for
the full purchase price amount. When Plaintiffs failed to pay their installments on their
promissory notes, the Corporate Defendants did not receive the benefit of any bargain with such
Plaintiffs, and in fact, were placed in a net loss situation because of the payment of commissions
113
356
on the full purchase price of the fractional ownership interest product to Catledge and his Impact
Entities and agents.
252. Accordingly, Plaintiffs did not give valuable and sufficient consideration to the
Corporate Defendants for the Corporate Defendants' loan to the Plaintiffs for half of the purchase
price of the fractional ownership interest product such Plaintiffs purchased.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Setoff
253. Plaintiffs claims, to the extent they are plead and proven against the Corporate
Defendants, must be setoff by the amount Plaintiffs owe to the Corporate Defendants on the
unpaid promissory notes executed by those Plaintiffs who purchased fractional ownership
interest product from certain of the Corporate Defendants as more fully described above.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pending Discovery
254. The Corporate Defendants reserve the right to add additional affirmative defenses
as discovery proceeds, and once the Corporate Defendants once again have access to their books
and records.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

NEXT PAGE BEGINS WITH COUNTERCLAIMS]
114
356
COUNTERCLAIMS
THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS (COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS) DO NOT WAIVE
THEIR DEFENSES TO THIS ACTION ON THE BASIS OF LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION, VENUE, MULTIFARIOUSNESS AND/OR FORUM NON
CONVENIENS. THESE COUNTERCLAIMS ARE BROUGHT IN THE EVENT THIS
COURT IS ULTIMATELY FOUND TO HAVE PERSONAL JURSIDICTION OVER
THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS AND IS FURTHER FOUND TO BE THE PROPER
AND MOST CONVENIENT VENUE. CORPORATE DEFENDANTS RESERVE THEIR
RIGHTS TO BRING CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THESE AND OTHER
DEFENDANTS IN COURTS OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THE
FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERED TO BELOW.
1. Counter-Plaintiffs EMI RESORTS INC., a foreign corporation, EMI SUN
VILLAGE INC., a foreign corporation, HSV OPERADORA DE HOTELES, S.A., a foreign
corporation, EMI RESORTS MANAGEMENT, S.A., a foreign corporation, EMI RESORTS
(S.V.G.) INC., a foreign corporation, EMI COFRESI DEVELOPMENTS INC., a foreign
corporation, SUN VILLAGE JUAN DOLIO INC., a foreign corporation, PROMOTORA
XARA, S.A., a foreign corporation, ELLIOTT MICHES HOLDINGS INC., a foreign
corporation, INVERSIONES YUBASO, S.A., a foreign corporation, INMOBILIARIA LIRIOS
DEL TROPICO, S.A., a foreign corporation, INMOBILIARIA CANADAIGUA, S.A., a foreign
corporation, HSV HOLDINGS, S.A., a foreign corporation, DESARROLLOS MIRADOR
COFRESI, S.A., a foreign corporation, TENEDORA HSV [B.P.], S.A., a foreign corporation,
VILLA SANTA PONCA, S.A., a foreign corporation, BERTUS MANAGEMENT INC., a
foreign corporation, CCW DOMINICANA, S.A, a foreign corporation, COFRESCO
115
356
HOLDINGS INC., a foreign corporation, INMOBILIARIA MONCEY, S.A., a foreign
corporation, CELLWAVE NETWORKS LIMITED, a foreign corporation, and WWIN
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a foreign corporation ("Counter-Plaintiffs") sue JOHN
ALEXA, an individual, ELSA ALLRED, an individual, STEVEN ANDERSON, an individual,
SHERI ANDERSON, an individual, JOANN ANTRIM, an individual, KERRY ARNOLD, an
individual, JANAE ARNOLD, an individual, JUAN ARRENDONDO, an individual, GARTH
ATWOOD, an individual, ARDITH ATWOOD, an individual, LAURA BAKER, an individual,
ANNETTE BARNETT, DUANE BARNEY, an individual, LAURA ANN OLSEN BARNEY,
an individual, JESSE BEAL, an individual, KEVIN BELL, an individual, ISABELLE
BERROWS, an individual, STEPHEN BIDDULPH, an individual, ALVIN BRANDT, an
individual, IRENE BRANDT, an individual, PATRICIA LYNNE BROGAN, an individual,
JOHN BOOKMAN, an individual, DAWNA BROWER, an individual, RALPH BROWER, an
individual, LUIS BUSTOS, an individual, BLANCA BUSTOS, an individual, SPENCER
CALL, and individual, MICHAEL CALLAHAN, an individual, FRANCISCO CARMONA, an
individual, ANTONIO CARRENO, an individual, FEBRONIA CARRENO, an individual,
GARY CASASSA, an individual, ROBERT GARCIA CEJA, an individual, JOSE CENDEJAS,
an individual, KERRY CHRISTENSEN, an individual, KATHIE CHRISTENSEN, an
individual, MICHAEL CONNER, an individual, MARIA CONNER, an individual, DARREN
COSSEY, an individual, JENNIFER COSSEY, an individual, KATHY COX, an individual,
ELEANOR CRAWFORD, an individual, BRENT CROMER, an individual, NANCY DIELI, an
individual, PAUL DUNN, an individual, JONATHAN ELBOM, an individual, RAMIRO
EFRAIN, an individual, SILVA BARRERA, an individual, DEANNA FAENZI-GLASS, an
individual, JOANNE FALKOWSKI, an individual, CHARLES FELTON, an individual,
116
356
MARIA FERNANDEZ, an individual, ALICE FITZWATER, an individual, GERTRUDE
FLOOD, an individual, KERRY FLYNN, an individual, THOMAS FREESE, an individual,
JOHN GARDINER, an individual, DIANE GARDINER, an individual, VICTOR GIRON-
ALVAREZ, an individual, ALBINO GONZALEZ, an individual, ANA GONZALEZ, an
individual, JOSE GURROLA, an individual, SONIA GURROLA, an individual, BRIAN HALL,
an individual, BRUCE HALL, an individual, TYLER HALL, an individual, RAYMOND
HANDY, an individual, MEGHAN HANDY, an individual, CLAYTON HANSEN, an
individual, ALYSON HANSEN, an individual, KAREN HANSEN, an individual, THOMAS
HARP, an individual, RICK HAWKER, an individual, DENNIS HAWORTH, an individual,
KLAUS HOFMANN, an individual, GARY HOUSE, an individual, TRENT HUDSON, an
individual, VALERIE HUDSON, an individual, GILBERT IREUGAS, an individual, CHERYL
JACKS, an individual, KAY LYNN JACOBSON, an individual, ALAN JENKINS, an
individual, GILBERT JING, an individual, FRANK JUNIO, an individual, RHONDA JUNIO,
an individual, JOHN KASSEL, an individual, PATRICIA KASSEL, an individual, JOHN KAY,
an individual, VERNON KILLEN, an individual, SEAN KIRBY, an individual, CAROL KITT,
an individual, ROBERT KITT, an individual, WARENETTA LANE, an individual, JAMES
LAWRENCE, an individual, WENDY LAWRENCE, an individual, RICHARD LEE, an
individual, MAY LEE, an individual, WAYLAND LEE, an individual, BARBARA LEWIS, an
individual, JOSE MANUEL LEYVA AGUILAR, an individual, EARL LINEBAUGH, an
individual, RITA LINEBAUGH, an individual, ED LOOPER, an individual, FINDENCIO
LOPEZ, an individual, TIBURCIO LOPEZ, an individual, DOUGLAS MADSEN, an individual,
CHERYL MADSEN, an individual, ERIKA LOPEZ, an individual, ISMAEL MANZO
ALVAREZ, an individual, ANGEL MARAVILLA, an individual, PIEDAD MARAVILLA, an
117
356
individual, ANTHONY MARTIN, an individual, OZZIE MARTIN JR., an individual, WILIAM
MATZ, an individual, ERICA MATZ, an individual, KYLE MCARTHUR, an individual, PAUL
MCKENNA, an individual, ALISA KRINSKY, an individual, CHERYL MEYER-YOUNG, an
individual, JOSE MILLAN, an individual, EMMA MILLAN, an individual, KAREL MOJZIS,
an individual, SHIRLEY MOORE, an individual, THOMAS MUSGROVE, an individual, DON
MYRES, an individual, SHIRLEY MYRES, an individual, SERGIO NAVARRO, an individual,
ROSA NAVARRO, an individual, DANIEL NIELSON, an individual, WALTER NEWBAUM,
an individual, PAM NEWBAUM, an individual, ROBERTA O’BRION, an individual, RUTH
O'HAGAN, an individual, JUAN OLVERA-QUIJAS, an individual, ALBERTO OROZCO, an
individual, NORMA OROZCO, an individual, MARIO ORTIZ, an individual, LOREDANA
ORTIZ, an individual, MATTHEW PARENTE, an individual, JOSE PENA, an individual,
RAFAELA PENA, an individual, GUADALUPE PEREZ, an individual, FEILIPE PEREZ, an
individual, MARIA PEREZ, an individual, MILTON PETTIT, an individual, NOLAN
PHILLIPS, an individual, JENNIE PHILLIPS, an individual, CHARLES PUCKETT, an
individual, RANDY PULLMAN, an individual, KEVIN RAINEY, an individual, CINDY
RAINEY, an individual, LOWELL RICE, an individual, LINDA RICE, an individual,
CHARLYN ROBERTS, an individual, ABEL ROCHA, an individual, JUAN RODRIGUEZ JR.,
an individual, JUDITH ROGERS, an individual, JOE ROSSITER, an individual, IMA JEAN
ROSSITER, an individual, JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ, an individual, SAMUEL SANCHEZ, an
individual, MIGUEL SILVA MEZA, an individual, ANGELA SIMAS, an individual, DANOU
SISA-AT, an individual, JARED SKELTON, an individual, JENNY SKELTON, an individual,
GLORIA SMITH, an individual, JIM SNIEZKO, an individual, JAMES SOLTIS, an individual,
ROSALIND SOLTIS, an individual, STANTON SOUTHWICK, an individual, JILL
118
356
SOUTHWICK, an individual, MARTHA SPENCE, an individual, WILLIAM SUBLETTE, an
individual, LORI SUBLETTE, an individual, SAM SYLIPHONE, an individual, BILL
TABBERT, an individual, LINDA TABBERT, an individual, KATHLEEN TANNER, an
individual, MARIA TAPIA, an individual, BRUCE THOMAS, an individual, CHERYLY
THOMAS, an individual, GARY THOMPSON, an individual, KERRY THOMPSON, an
individual, STEVE THOMPSON, an individual, LUIS TORRES, an individual, MARIA
TORRES, an individual, MARIA TORRES, an individual, KENNY TRAN, an individual,
CHRISTOL TRAN, an individual, PAULINE TRAUB, an individual, RUTH VALDEZ, an
individual, JOHN VERKAIK, an individual, JENNIFER VERKAIK, an individual, MARCELA
VILLAGOMEZ, an individual, KENNETH WALLACE, an individual, KAMILLE WALLACE,
an individual, ROLF WALPOLE, an individual, TANGIE WALPOLE, an individual, JOHN
WEBB, an individual, TERRY WEBB, an individual, HARVEY WEILER, an individual,
MARLENE WEILER, an individual, KAY WILLIAMS, an individual, MARY LEE
WILLIAMS, an individual, SANDRA WIN, an individual, JEFFREY WOLF, an individual,
LOLITA WOLF, an individual, KOK KYAN WONG, an individual, STEVEN YOUNG, an
individual, REBECCA YOUNG, an individual, MARTIN ZAMUDIO, an individual, ESTELA
ZAMUDIO, an individual, and SUSAN ZANAYED, an individual ("Counter-Defendants") and
state:
2. This is a civil action for money damages resulting from breach of promissory
notes in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest, court costs and attorneys fees.
119
356
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS
3. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff EMI RESORTS INC. was and is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands. EMI
RESORTS INC. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
4. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff EMI SUN VILLAGE INC. was and
is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands. EMI
SUN VILLAGE INC. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
5. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff HSV OPERADORA DE
HOTELES, S.A. was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Dominican Republic. HSV OPERADORA DE HOTELES, S.A. does not transact business in
the State of Florida.
6. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff EMI RESORTS MANAGEMENT
S.A. was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic.
EMI RESORTS MANAGEMENT S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
7. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff EMI RESORTS (S.V.G.) INC. was
and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
EMI RESORTS (S.V.G.) INC. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
8. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff EMI COFRESI DEVELOPMENTS
INC. was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Turks and Caicos
Islands. EMI COFRESI DEVELOPMENTS INC. does not transact business in the State of
Florida.
120
356
9. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff EMI COFRESI DEVELOPMENTS
Islands. EMI COFRESI DEVELOPMENTS INC. does not transact business in the State of
Florida.
10. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff SUN VILLAGE JUAN DOLIO
INC. ("SVJD") was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Turks and
Caicos Islands. Sun Village Juan Dolio Inc. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
11. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff PROMOTORA XARA, S.A. was
and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic.
PROMOTORA XARA, S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
12. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff ELLIOTT MICHES HOLDINGS
Islands. ELLIOTT MICHES HOLDINGS INC. does not transact business in the State of
Florida.
13. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff INVERSIONES YUBASO, S.A.
was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic.
INVERSIONES YUBASO, S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
14. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff INMOBILIARIA LIRIOS DEL
TROPICO, S.A. was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Dominican Republic. INMOBILIARIA LIRIOS DEL TROPICO, S.A. does not transact
business in the State of Florida.
121
356
15. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff INMOBILIARIA CANADAIGUA,
S.A. was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic.
INMOBILIARIA CANADAIGUA, S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
16. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff HSV HOLDINGS, S.A. was and is
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic. HSV
HOLDINGS, S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
17. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff DESARROLLOS MIRADOR
COFRESI, S.A. was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Dominican Republic. DESARROLLOS MIRADOR COFRESI, S.A. does not transact business
in the State of Florida.
18. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff TENEDORA HSV [B.P.], S.A. was
and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic.
TENEDORA HSV [B.P.], S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
19. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff VILLA SANTA PONCA, S.A. was
and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic. VILLA
SANTA PONCA, S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
20. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff BERTUS MANAGEMENT INC.
was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
BERTUS MANAGEMENT INC. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
21. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff CCW DOMINICANA, S.A. was
and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic. CCW
DOMINICANA, S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
122
356
22. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff COFRESCO HOLDINGS INC.
was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
COFRESCO HOLDINGS INC. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
23. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff INMOBILIARIA MONCEY, S.A.
was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic.
INMOBILIARIA MONCEY, S.A. does not transact business in the State of Florida.
24. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff CELLWAVE NETWORKS
LIMITED was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Gibraltar.
CELLWAVE NETWORKS LIMITED does not transact business in the State of Florida.
25. At all times material hereto, Counter-Plaintiff WWIN INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of St. Vincent and the
Grenadines. WWIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED does not transact business in the State of
Florida.
COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
26. The following Counter-Defendants are allegedly residents of the United States, or
Canada (as indicated), over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise sui juris:22
a. John Alexa is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Tyngsboro, Maine and is otherwise sui juris. John Alexa allegedly purchased,
22
As a result of the Corporate Defendants having no access to their books and records, the Corporate Defendants
reserve the right to amend these counterclaims as a result of discovery of documentation from the Counter-
Defendants or upon review of the Corporate Defendants' books and records which have been seized by Special
Master Thomas Scott. Moreover, while Corporate Defendants are forced to refer to Plaintiffs' descriptions of the
vacation ownership product purchased by the following Counter-Defendants as a result of their books and records
having been seized, the Corporate Defendants reserve the right to more fully allege with specificity the exact
product purchased by each Counter-Defendant and the amounts owed the Corporate Defendants on their individual
promissory notes– information which is simply lacking from Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, and unavailable to the
Corporate Defendants at the time of filing this Counter-Claim.
123
356
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one two bedroom unit at The Residence, Sun
Village Beach Resort" allegedly in the amount of $50,000.00
b. Elsa Allred is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Ventura, California and is otherwise sui juris. Elsa Allred allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence Penthouse,
Maxim Bungalows, Juan Dolio" allegedly in the amount of $120,000.00.
c. Steven Anderson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Shafter, California and is otherwise sui juris. Steven Anderson allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "a penthouse " allegedly in the amount of
$37,500.
d. Sheri Anderson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Shafter, California and is otherwise sui juris. Sheri Anderson allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "a penthouse" allegedly in the amount of
$37,500.
e. Joann Antrim is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Austin, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Joann Antrim allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "nine units of Passport Residence Condominium, Sun
Village, Juan Dolio" allegedly in the amount of $94,921.92.
f. Kerry Arnold is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Alpine, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kerry Arnold allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "seven Sun Village Maxim Bungalows, Cofresi"
allegedly in the amount of $303,460.00.
124
356
g. Janae Arnold is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Alpine, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Janae Arnold allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "seven Sun Village Maxim Bungalows, Cofresi"
h. Garth Atwood is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Payson, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Garth Atwood allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "seven Passport Residence Condominiums, Sun
Village, Juan Dolio, two 2-bedroom Grand Suites, 2 Passport Residence Condominium –
Double, and 1 Passport Residence Condominium – King, Sun Village, Cofresi" allegedly
in the amount of $285,328.21.
i. Ardith Atwood is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Payson Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Ardith Atwood allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "seven Passport Residence Condominiums, Sun
Village, Juan Dolio, two 2-bedroom Grand Suites, 2 Passport Residence Condominium –
Double, and 1 Passport Residence Condominium – King, Sun Village, Cofresi" allegedly
j. Laura Baker is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Laura Baker allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence, Condominiums
– King and one Passport Residence Condominium," allegedly in the amount of
$36,984.00.
k. Annette Barnett is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Cruz, California and is otherwise sui juris. Annette Barnette allegedly
125
356
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one bedroom, Sun Villate Resort,
Cofresi" allegedly in the amount of $10,000.00.
l. Duane Barney is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Highland, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Duane Barney allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "property from the Elliotts," allegedly in the amount
of $56,250.00.
m. Laura Ann Olsen Barney is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Highland, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Laura Barney allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "property from the Elliotts," allegedly in
the amount of $56,250.00.
n. Jesse Beal is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of West Jordan, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Jesse Beal allegedly purchased, as pled
in the Amended Complaint, "a Residence at Sun Village, Juan Dolio" allegedly in the
amount of $68,595.00.
o. Kevin Bell is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Hooper, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kevin Bell allegedly purchased, as pled in the
Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow – King, one Passport Residence Penthouse
and one Passport Residence Condominium - Double, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$68,595.00.
p. Isabelle Berrows is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oregon City, Oregon and is otherwise sui juris. Isabel Berrows allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence Condominiums
126
356
and one Passport Residence Penthouse, Sun Village, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$170,859.45.
q. Stephen Biddulph is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Provo, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Stephen Biddulph allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalows Passport
Superior, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $80,000.
r. Alvin Brandt is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of San Leandro, California and is otherwise sui juris. Alvin Brandt allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow – King, Cofresi,
and one Passport Residence Condominium – King, and one Passport Superior
Condominium, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $65,745.00.
s. Irene Brandt is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of San Leandro, California and is otherwise sui juris. Irene Brandt allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow – King, Cofresi,
and one Passport Residence Condominium – King, and one Passport Superior
t. Patricia Lynne Brogan is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Vallejo, California and is otherwise sui juris. Patricia Lynne Brogan
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow – King,
Cofresi, and one Passport Residence Condominium – King, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $670,000.
u. John Bookman is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Burley, Idaho and is otherwise sui juris. John Bookman allegedly purchased,
127
356
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two units, Passport Residence Penthouse, Juan
Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $63,281.25.
v. Dawna Brower is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Hyrum, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Dawna Brower allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four Passport Superior Condominiums, Juan Dolio,"
allegedly in the amount of $75,000.
w. Ralph Brower is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Hyrum, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Ralph Brower allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence Condominiums – King, Juan
Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $47,000.
x. Luis Bustos is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Luis Bustos allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Studio, Maxim Bungalows, Cofresi,"
y. Blanca Bustos is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Blanca Bustos allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Studio, Maxim Bungalows, Cofresi,"
z. Spencer Call is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of West Haven, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Spencer Call allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence Condominium,
Double, One Passport Residence Penthouse, and one Passport Superior Condominium,"
128
356
aa. Michael Callahan is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of American Fork, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Michael Callahan allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Studio Bungalow, Maxim
Bungalows, and one Maxim Bungalow – King, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$95,000.00.
bb. Francisco Carmona is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Francisco Carmona
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Studio Bungalow, Maxim
Bungalows, Cofresi, and on 1 Bedroom Grand Suite, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $95,347.00.
cc. Antonio Carreno is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Rohnert Park, California and is otherwise sui juris. Antonio Carreno
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Bungalow, Maxim
Bungalows, Cofresi, and one Residence Condominium, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $32,550.00.
dd. Febronia Carreno is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Rohnert Park, California and is otherwise sui juris. Febronia Carreno
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Bungalow, Maxim
Bungalows, Cofresi, and one Residence Condominium, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $32,550.00.
ee. Gary Casassa is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Gary Casassa allegedly
129
356
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one 2 Bedroom Suite, Maxim
Bungalow," allegedly in the amount of $67,900.00.
ff. Robert Garcia Ceja is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Fort Valley, Georgia and is otherwise sui juris. Robert Garcia Ceja allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "units," allegedly in the amount of
$64,867.50.
gg. Jose Cendejas is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oxnard, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jose Cendejas allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "a Residence unit at Juan Dolio,"
hh. Kerry Christensen is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Provo, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kerry Christensen allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one 2 Bedroom Grand Bungalow,
Maxim Bungalows, Cofresi, two Maxim Bungalow – Double, Cofresi," allegedly in the
amount of $242,376.00.
ii. Kathie Christensen is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Provo, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kathie Christensen allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one 2 Bedroom Grand Bungalow,
Maxim Bungalows, Cofresi, two Maxim Bungalow – Double, Cofresi," allegedly in the
amount of $242,376.00.
jj. Michael Conner is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Canton, Massachusetts and is otherwise sui juris. Michael Conner allegedly
130
356
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "eight units Passport Superior
Condominiums," allegedly in the amount of $337,504.00.
kk. Maria Conner is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Canton, Massachusetts and is otherwise sui juris. Maria Conner allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "eight units Passport Superior
Condominiums," allegedly in the amount of $337,504.00.
ll. Darren Cossey is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Darren Cossey allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "purchased a unit at Cofresi and a unit at
Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $46,000.00.
mm. Jennifer Cossey is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jennifer Cossey allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "a unit at Cofresi and a unit at Juan
nn. Kathy Cox is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Provo, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kathy Cox allegedly purchased, as pled in the
Amended Complaint, "two 1 bedroom, unit at the Residence, Cofresi," allegedly in the
amount of $20,000.00.
oo. Eleanor Crawford is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Centralia, Washington and is otherwise sui juris. Eleanor Crawford allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Maxima Bungalow Superior, three
Maxim Bungalow Penthouse Suites and one Maxim Bungalow Two Bedroom Suite, Juan
131
356
pp. Brent Cromer is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Anderson, South Carolina and is otherwise sui juris. Brent Cromer allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "Juan Dolio Passport Superior Condo"
qq. Nancy Dieli is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Park City, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Nancy Dieli allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "3 Passport Residence Penthouse, Juan Dolio"
rr. Paul Dunn is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Sebastapol, California and is otherwise sui juris. Paul Dunn allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "nine Maxim Bungalows, Juan Dolio" allegedly in the
amount of $409,500.00.
ss. Jonathan Elbom is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Austin, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Jonathan Elbom allegedly
one 2 Bedroom Grand Suite, and two Passport Superior Condominiums, Juan Dolio,"
tt. Ramiro Efrain, is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Ramiro Efrain allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Residence Condominium–
132
356
King, and one Passport Superior Condominium," allegedly in the amount of
$50,203.13.23
uu. Silva Barrera is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Silva Barrera allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Residence Condominium–
King, and one Passport Superior Condominium," allegedly in the amount of
$50,203.13.24
vv. Deanna Faenzi-Glass is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Deanna Faenzi-Glass
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "twenty-four units, Passport
Superior Condominiums, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $240,000.00.
ww. Joanne Falkowski is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Vienna, Virginia and is otherwise sui juris. Joanne Falkowski allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "six units Passport Superior
Condominiums, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $60,000.00.
xx. Charles Felton is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and is otherwise sui juris. Charles Felton
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "eleven units 2 Bedroom Suite,
ten units 1 Bedroom Suite, Residence, Cofresi, and one Grand Presidential Penthouse,
23
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint inexplicably and confusingly combines information for Ramiro Efrain and Silva
Barrera such that it is impossible to know exactly what product has been purchased by either Ramiro Efrain or Silva
Barrera.
133
356
yy. Maria Fernandez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Maria Fernandez allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence Condominiums
– King, four Passport Resident Condominiums, Juan Dolio, and one Maxim Bungalow,
Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $177,882.00.
zz. Alice Fitzwater is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Alice Fitzwater allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Grand Penthouse Suite and one
Passport Residence Condominium – King, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$36,750.00.
aaa. Gertrude Flood is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Hopkinsville, Kentucky and is otherwise sui juris. Gertrude Flood allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one 1 Bedroom Suite and 1 2 Bedroom
Suite, Residence," allegedly in the amount of $30,000.00.
bbb. Kerry Flynn is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Clarklake, Michigan and is otherwise sui juris. Kerry Flynn allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Studio Bungalow, Cofresi, and
interest in The Residence, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $62,000.00.
ccc. Thomas Freese is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Gilmanton, New Hampshire and is otherwise sui juris. Thomas Freese
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "a Residence, Juan Dolio"
24
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint inexplicably and confusingly combines information for Ramiro Efrain and Silva
134
356
ddd. John Gardiner is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Woodland, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. John Gardiner allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow Residence – King,
eee. Diane Gardiner is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Woodland, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Diane Gardiner allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow Residence – King,
fff. Victor Giron-Alvarez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Healdsburg, California and is otherwise sui juris. Victor Giron-Alvarez
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Superior
Condominiums and one Passport Residence Penthouse, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $22,656.00.
ggg. Albino Gonzalez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oxnard, California and is otherwise sui juris. Albino Gonzalez allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence and one Passport
Resident Condominium – King, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $63,421.88.
hhh. Ana Gonzalez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oxnard, California and is otherwise sui juris. Ana Gonzalez allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence and one Passport
Resident Condominium – King, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $63,421.88.
Barrera such that it is impossible to know exactly what product has been purchased by either Ramiro Efrain or Silva
Barrera.
135
356
iii. Jose Gurrola is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Plano, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Jose Gurrola allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Superior Condominiums, Juan Dolio,"
jjj. Sonia Gurrola is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Plano, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Sonia Gurrola allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Superior Condominiums, Juan Dolio,"
kkk. Brian Hall is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Nephi, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Brian Hall allegedly purchased, as pled in the
Amended Complaint, "Passport Superior Condominium, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $28,125.00.
lll. Bruce Hall is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Nephi, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Bruce Hall allegedly purchased, as pled in the
Amended Complaint, "two units Passport Residence Penthouse, nine units Passport
Residence Condominiums. Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $121,640.00.
mmm. Tyler Hall is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Lehi, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Tyler Hall allegedly purchased, as pled in the
Amended Complaint, "one unit Passport Superior Condominium, Juan Dolio," allegedly
nnn. Raymond Handy is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Raymond Handy allegedly
136
356
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow Superior Suite,
ooo. Meghan Handy is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Meghan Handy allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow Superior Suite,
ppp. Clayton Hansen is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Cedar Hills, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Clayton Hansen allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence unit," allegedly
qqq. Alyson Hansen is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Cedar Hills, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Alyson Hansen allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence unit," allegedly
rrr. Karen Hansen is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Tiburon, California and is otherwise sui juris. Karen Hansen allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Residence unit, Juan Dolio,"
sss. Thomas Harp is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Sacramento, California and is otherwise sui juris. Thomas Harp allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "nine Passport Residence Condominium –
Double, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $126,562.50.
137
356
ttt. Rick Hawker is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Morgan Hill, California and is otherwise sui juris. Rick Hawker allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "twenty Passport Residence
Condominium – King Units, one Bedroom Grand Suite, one Penthouse Suite and Unit,
Juan Doli, " allegedly in the amount of $276,006.25.
uuu. Dennis Haworth is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Sacramento, California and is otherwise sui juris. Dennis Haworth allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "nine 1 Bedroom Grand Suite unites, Juan
vvv. Klaus Hofmann is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Miramar Beach, Florida25 and is otherwise sui juris. Klaus Hofmann
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Penthouse suite, 12
Superior Condominiums, Juan Dolio, and thirteen Maxim Bungalow units, Cofresi,"
www. Gary House is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Austin, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Gary House allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Superior Condominium unit and one
Maxim Bungalow 2 Bedroom unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $95,000.
xxx. Trent Hudson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Sonoma, California and is otherwise sui juris. Trent Hudson allegedly
25
Upon information and belief, notwithstanding Plaintiffs attempt to assert jurisdiction in this Court through Mr.
Hofmann's contacts with the Southern District of Florida, Mr. Hofmann is or was, at all times material herein, a
resident of Park City, Utah with (to put it mildly) questionable connections or minimum contacts with the Southern
District of Florida.
138
356
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Residence Condominiums
– King, units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $39,656.25.
yyy. Valerie Hudson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Sonoma, California and is otherwise sui juris. Valerie Hudson allegedly
– King, units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $39,656.25.
zzz. Gilbert Ireugas is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Cruz, California and is otherwise sui juris. Gilbert Ireugas allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Superior Condominium
units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $30,000.00.
aaaa. Cheryl Jacks is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Las Vegas, Nevada and is otherwise sui juris. Cheryl Jacks allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "ten Passport Residence Penthouse units
and two Passport Superior Condominium units, Maxim Bungalows, Juan Dolio,"
bbbb. Kay Lynn Jacobson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Phoenix, Arizona and is otherwise sui juris. Kay Lynn Jacobson allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four Passport Residence Condominiums
– Double units, Sun Villages, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $75,000.00.
cccc. Alan Jenkins is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Crockett, California and is otherwise sui juris. Alan Jenkins allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "five Superior Condominium units, Juan
Dolio, and one unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $20,000.00.
139
356
dddd. Gilbert Jing is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oakland, California and is otherwise sui juris. Gilbert Jing allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Superior Condominium
eeee. Frank Junio is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Tulare, California and is otherwise sui juris. Frank Junio allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Superior Condominium unit and eight
Passport Residence Condominium units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$112,499.00.
ffff. Rhonda Junio is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Tulare, California and is otherwise sui juris. Rhonda Junio allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Superior Condominium unit
and eight Passport Residence Condominium units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount
of $112,499.00.
gggg. John Kassel is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Round Rock, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. John Kassel allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence Penthouse unit;
five Passport Superior Condominium units, one Maxim Bungalow – King, unit, two 2
Bedroom Grand Suite units, two Passport Residence Condominium – Double units,
Maxim Bungalows, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $259,100.00.
hhhh. Patricia Kassel is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Round Rock, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Patricia Kassel allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, " one Passport Residence Penthouse unit;
140
356
five Passport Superior Condominium units, one Maxim Bungalow – King, unit, two 2
Bedroom Grand Suite units, two Passport Residence Condominium – Double units,
Maxim Bungalows, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $259,100.00.
iiii. John Kay is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Provo, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. John Kay allegedly purchased, as pled in the
Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow – King Unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the
amount of $43,245.00.
jjjj. Vernon Killen is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Georgetown, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Vernon Killen allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence Penthouse units
and seven Passport Superior Condominium units," allegedly in the amount of $94,000.00.
kkkk. Sean Kirby is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Visalia, California and is otherwise sui juris. Sean Kirby allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Superior Condominium unit, Juan
Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $10,000.
llll. Carol Kitt is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Burley, Idaho and is otherwise sui juris. Carol Kitt allegedly purchased, as pled in the
Amended Complaint, "five Passport Residence Penthouse Units, Juan Dolio," allegedly
mmmm. Robert Kitt is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Burley, Idaho and is otherwise sui juris. Robert Kitt allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow Double unit, one 12 Bedroom
Grand Bungalow Double unit, Cofresi, and eight Passport Residence Condominium
141
356
Double units and two Passport Residence Penthouse units," allegedly in the amount of
$232,487.50.
nnnn. Warenetta Lane is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Novato, California and is otherwise sui juris. Warenetta Lane allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "five Passport Superior Condominium
units, Juan Dolio, one 1 Bedroom Condominium unit and one 2 Bedroom Condominium
unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $206,000.00.
oooo. James Lawrence is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Henderson, Nevada and is otherwise sui juris. James Lawrence allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "five 2 Bedroom Condominium units and
two 1 bedroom units," allegedly in the amount of $135,000.00.
pppp. Wendy Lawrence is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Henderson, Nevada and is otherwise sui juris. Wendy Lawrence allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "five 2 Bedroom Condominium units and
two 1 bedroom units," allegedly in the amount of $135,000.00.
qqqq. Richard Lee is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of San Francisco, California and is otherwise sui juris. Richard Lee allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "Maxim Bungalows Cofresi and
Residence at Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $360,967.50.
rrrr. May Lee is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of San Francisco, California and is otherwise sui juris. May Lee allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "Maxim Bungalows Cofresi and Residence at Juan
142
356
ssss. Wayland Lee is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Rohnert Park, California and is otherwise sui juris. Wayland Lee allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "six Passport Superior Condominium
tttt. Barbara Lewis is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Visalia, California and is otherwise sui juris. Barbara Lewis allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "1 Bedroom Condominium units, Maxim
Bungalows," allegedly in the amount of $50,000.00.
uuuu. Jose Manuel Leyva Aguilar is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs,
an adult resident of Cloverdale, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jose Manuel Leyva
Aguilar allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "Passport Residence
Penthouse at Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $12,656.25.
vvvv. Earl Linebaugh is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of E. Berlin, Pennsylvania and is otherwise sui juris. Earl Linebaugh allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence Penthouse unit,
wwww. Rita Linebaugh is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of E. Berlin, Pennsylvania and is otherwise sui juris. Rita Linebaugh
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence
Penthouse unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $33,750.00.
xxxx. Ed Looper is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Oakdale, California and is otherwise sui juris. Ed Looper allegedly purchased, as pled
143
356
in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $28,125.00.
yyyy. Emilia Lopez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Windsor, California and is otherwise sui juris. Emilia Lopez allegedly
zzzz. Findencio Lopez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oxnard, California and is otherwise sui juris. Findencio Lopez allegedly
aaaaa. Tiburcio Lopez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Laytonville, California and is otherwise sui juris. Tiburcio Lopez allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "seven Passport Superior Condominium
bbbbb. Douglas Madsen is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Garden City, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Douglas Madsen allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow King unit,
Cofresi, and ten Passport Superior Condominium units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $143,245.00.
ccccc. Cheryl Madsen is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Garden City, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Cheryl Madsen allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow King unit,
144
356
Cofresi, and ten Passport Superior Condominium units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $143,245.00.
ddddd. Erika Lopez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Tracy, California and is otherwise sui juris. Erika Lopez allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Superior Condominium unit, Juan
eeeee. Ismael Manzo Alvarez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Ismael Manzo Alvarez
Condominium, King Unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $56,250.00.
fffff. Angel Maravilla is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Angel Maravilla allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residential Condominium
ggggg. Piedad Maravilla is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Piedad Maravilla allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residential Condominium
hhhhh. Anthony Martin is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Pixley, California and is otherwise sui juris. Anthony Martin allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two 2 Maxim Bungalow Bedroom,
Grand, Cofresi, and one unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $168,489.00.
145
356
iiiii. Ozzie Martin Jr. is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Tulare, California and is otherwise sui juris. Ozzie Martin Jr. allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Residence Condominium
King Units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $39,565.25.
jjjjj. William Matz is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Windsor, California and is otherwise sui juris. William Matz allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "investments," allegedly in the amount of
$93,000.00.
kkkkk. Erica Matz is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Windsor, California and is otherwise sui juris. Erica Matz allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "investments," allegedly in the amount of $93,000.00.
lllll. Kyle McArthur is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oakley, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kyle McArthur allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four 2 Bedroom Grand Suite units, Juan Dolio,"
mmmmm. Paul McKenna is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Los Gatos, California and is otherwise sui juris. Paul McKenna allegedly
and one Passport Residential Penthouse unit," allegedly in the amount of $41,250.00.
nnnnn. Alisa Krinsky is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Los Gatos, California and is otherwise sui juris. Alisa Krinsky allegedly
and one Passport Residential Penthouse unit," allegedly in the amount of $41,250.00.
146
356
ooooo. Cheryl Meyer-Young is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Cheryl Meyer-Young
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one 2 Bedroom Suite unit and
one 2 Bedroom Grand Suite unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $31,875.00.
ppppp. Jose Millan is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jose Millan allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "ten 2 Bedroom Suite units, Cofresi,"
qqqqq. Emma Millan is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Emma Millan allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "ten 2 Bedroom Suite units, Cofresi,"
rrrrr. Karel Mojzis is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Citrus Heights, California and is otherwise sui juris. Karel Mojzis allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Resident unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly
sssss. Shirley Moore is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Petaluma, California and is otherwise sui juris. Shirley Moore allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "seventy-two Passport Condominium
units, four Passport Residence Condominium King Units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the
amount of $772,594.11.
ttttt. Thomas Musgrove is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Avinger, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Thomas Musgrove allegedly
147
356
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "nine Passport Residence King
Condominium units, one Passport Residence Penthouse unit, and one Passport Residence
Condominium unit," allegedly in the amount of $149,765.63.
uuuuu. Don Myres is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Liberty Hills, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Don Myres allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "nine Passport Residence Condominium
units, one Passport Residence Penthouse, and one Passport Residence Condominium
unit," allegedly in the amount of $194,500.00.
vvvvv. Shirley Myres is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Liberty Hills, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Shirley Myres allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "nine Passport Residence Condominium
units, one Passport Residence Penthouse, and one Passport Residence Condominium
unit," allegedly in the amount of $194,500.00.
wwwww. Sergio Navarro is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Oxnard, California and is otherwise sui juris. Sergio Navarro allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four 2 Bedroom Grand Suite units and
two Passport Residence Condominium units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$335,640.64.
xxxxx. Rosa Navarro is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oxnard, California and is otherwise sui juris. Rosa Navarro allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four 2 Bedroom Grand Suite units and
two Passport Residence Condominium units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$335,640.64.
148
356
yyyyy. Daniel Nielson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of W. Valley City, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Daniel Nielson allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence Condominium
King Unit, one Passport Residence Penthouse, one Passport Superior Condominium, Juan
zzzzz. Walter Newbaum is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic and is otherwise sui juris. Walter
Newbaum allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Studio
Bungalow unit and one Maxim Bungalow Double unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount
of $73,800.00.
aaaaaa. Pam Newbaum is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic and is otherwise sui juris. Pam Newbaum
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Studio Bungalow
unit and one Maxim Bungalow Double unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$73,800.00.
bbbbbb. Roberta O’Brion is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Stockton, California and is otherwise sui juris. Roberta O’Brion
cccccc. Ruth O'Hagan is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Lowell, Massachusetts and is otherwise sui juris. Ruth O'Hagan allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Residence unit, Cofresi," allegedly
149
356
dddddd. Juan Olvera-Quijas is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs,
an adult resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Juan Olvera-Quijas
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow,
eeeeee. Alberto Orozco is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Alberto Orozco allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence Condominium
double units," allegedly in the amount of $112,500.00.
ffffff. Norma Orozco is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Norma Orozco allegedly
double units," allegedly in the amount of $112,500.00.
gggggg. Mario Ortiz is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Oxnard, California and is otherwise sui juris. Mario Ortiz allegedly
hhhhhh. Loredana Ortiz is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Oxnard, California and is otherwise sui juris. Loredana Ortiz allegedly
iiiiii. Matthew Parente is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Austin, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Matthew Parente allegedly
150
356
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "Passport Superior Condominium unit,
jjjjjj. Jose Pena is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult resident
of Windsor, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jose Pena allegedly purchased, as pled
in the Amended Complaint, "six Passport Superior Condominium units, Juan Dolio,"
kkkkkk. Rafaela Pena is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Windsor, California and is otherwise sui juris. Rafaela Pena allegedly
units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $225,000.00
llllll. Guadalupe Perez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Guadalupe Perez allegedly
mmmmmm. Felipe Perez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Felipe Perez allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "at the Residence, Sun Village, Juan
nnnnnn. Maria Perez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Maria Perez allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "at the Residence, Sun Village, Juan
151
356
oooooo. Milton Pettit is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Amity, Oregon and is otherwise sui juris. Milton Pettit allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Studio Maxim Bungalow, Cofresi,
and one 1 Bedroom Grand Suite, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $62,175.00.
pppppp. Nolan Phillips is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Woodland, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Nolan Phillips allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Superior Condominium
unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $10,000.00.
qqqqqq. Jennie Phillips is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Woodland, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Jennie Phillips allegedly
rrrrrr. Charles Puckett is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Hopkinsville, Kentucky and is otherwise sui juris. Charles Puckett allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow King, Cofresi, one
Studio Passport unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $90,245.00.
ssssss. Randy Pullman is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Layton, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Randy Pullman allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Penthouse unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly
tttttt. Kevin Rainey is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Kenai, Alaska and is otherwise sui juris. Kevin Rainey allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence Condominium units, Juan
152
356
Dolio, and two Maxim Bungalows, King, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$78,753.76.
uuuuuu. Cindy Rainey is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Kenai, Alaska and is otherwise sui juris. Cindy Rainey allegedly
units, Juan Dolio, and two Maxim Bungalows, King, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$78,753.76.
vvvvvv. Lowell Rice is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Claremont, California and is otherwise sui juris. Lowell Rice allegedly
units and two Passport Residence Penthouse units, Juan Dolio, four 2 Bedroom Suite
units, on Studio Bungalow unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $252,610.00.
wwwwww. Linda Rice is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Claremont, California and is otherwise sui juris. Linda Rice allegedly
units and two Passport Residence Penthouse units, Juan Dolio, four 2 Bedroom Suite
units, on Studio Bungalow unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $252,610.00.
xxxxxx. Charlyn Roberts is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Yuba City, California and is otherwise sui juris. Charlyn Roberts
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one 1 Bedroom unit, Cofresi,"
153
356
yyyyyy. Abel Rocha is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Healdsburg, California and is otherwise sui juris. Abel Rocha allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Penthouse unit and, Juan Dolio, and
one 1 Bedroom Suite unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $40,000.00.
zzzzzz. Juan Rodriguez Jr. is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Healdsburg, California and is otherwise sui juris. Juan Rodriguez Jr.
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Superior
Condominium," allegedly in the amount of $10,000.00.
aaaaaaa. Judith Rogers is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Stockton, California and is otherwise sui juris. Judith Rogers allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "Residence units, Juan Dolio," allegedly
bbbbbbb. Joe Rossiter is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Tulare, California and is otherwise sui juris. Joe Rossiter allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "twenty Passport Superior Condominium
units and one 2 Bedroom Grand Suite, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$216,875.00.
ccccccc. Ima Jean Rossiter is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Tulare, California and is otherwise sui juris. Ima Jean Rossiter allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "twenty Passport Superior Condominium
units and one 2 Bedroom Grand Suite, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$216,875.00.
154
356
ddddddd. Jose Luis Sanchez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs,
an adult resident of Geyersville, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jose Luis Sanchez
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "five 2 Bedroom Suite units,
eeeeeee. Samuel Sanchez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Samuel Sanchez
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Maxim Bungalows, King,
fffffff. Miguel Silva Meza is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Healdsburg, California and is otherwise sui juris. Miguel Silva Meza
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one 1 Bedroom Suite unit,
ggggggg. Angela Simas is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Ridgefield, Washington and is otherwise sui juris. Angela Simas
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "Four Passport Superior
Condominium units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $42,187.50.
hhhhhhh. Danou Sisa-At is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Alameda, California and is otherwise sui juris. Danou Sisa-At allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Grand Presidential Penthouse unit,
Cofresi, one Passport Residence Penthouse, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$88,750.00.
iiiiiii. Jared Skelton is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Provo, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Jared Skelton allegedly purchased, as
155
356
pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Residence Condominium," allegedly in the amount
of $12,500.00.
jjjjjjj. Jenny Skelton is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Provo, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Jenny Skelton allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Residence Condominium," allegedly in the amount
of $12,500.00.
kkkkkkk. Gloria Smith is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of N. Las Vegas, Nevada and is otherwise sui juris. Gloria Smith allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "five 2 Bedroom Suites, Cofresi,"
lllllll. Jim Sniezko is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of San Francisco, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jim Sniezko allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four Passport Superior Condominium
units Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $72,000.00.
mmmmmmm. James Soltis is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Pine Valley, California and is otherwise sui juris. James Soltis allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence unit and one
Passport Penthouse unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $45,206.25.
nnnnnnn. Rosalind Soltis is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Pine Valley, California and is otherwise sui juris. Rosalind Soltis
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Passport Residence unit
and one Passport Penthouse unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $45,206.25.
156
356
ooooooo. Stanton Southwick is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs,
an adult resident of Henderson, Nevada and is otherwise sui juris. Stanton Southwick
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four 2 Bedroom Grand Suites
and two 1 Bedroom Grant Suite, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $100,000.00.
ppppppp. Jill Southwick is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Henderson, Nevada and is otherwise sui juris. Jill Southwick allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four 2 Bedroom Grand Suites and two 1
Bedroom Grant Suite, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $100,000.00.
qqqqqqq. Martha Spence is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Middletown, California and is otherwise sui juris. Martha Spence
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "property" allegedly in the
amount of $16,800.00.
rrrrrrr. William Sublette is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Las Vegas, Nevada and is otherwise sui juris. William Sublette allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "units located at the Sun Village Cofresi,"
sssssss.Lori Sublette is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Las Vegas, Nevada and is otherwise sui juris. Lori Sublette allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "units located at the Sun Village Cofresi,"
ttttttt. Sam Syliphone is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Sam Syliphone allegedly
157
356
uuuuuuu. Bill Tabbert is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Austin, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Bill Tabbert allegedly purchased, as
pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Maxim Bungalow Superior units and one
Passport Residence Condominium Unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$147,937.52.
vvvvvvv. Linda Tabbert is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Austin, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Linda Tabbert allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Maxim Bungalow Superior units
and one Passport Residence Condominium Unit, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of
$147,937.52.
wwwwwww. Steven Tanner is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Payson Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Steven Tanner allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Maxim Bungalow King, 2 Maxim
Bungalow Double, and two Studio Bungalow Units, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$276,955.00.
xxxxxxx. Kathleen Tanner is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Payson Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kathleen Tanner allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Maxim Bungalow King, 2 Maxim
Bungalow Double, and two Studio Bungalow Units, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$276,955.00.
158
356
yyyyyyy. Maria Tapia is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Maria Tapia allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "seven Passport Superior Condominium
zzzzzzz. Bruce Thomas is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Scottsdale, Arizona and is otherwise sui juris. Bruce Thomas allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "units, Residence, Sun Village Cofresi,"
aaaaaaaa. Gary Thompson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Highland, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Gary Thompson allegedly
bbbbbbbb. Kerry Thompson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Highland, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kerry Thompson allegedly
cccccccc. Steve Thompson is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Springville, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Steve Thompson allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "twenty-one 2 Bedroom Condominium
units, two 1 Bedroom Condominium unit, Cofresi, units Residence, Juan Dolio,"
dddddddd. Luis Torres is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Windsor, California and is otherwise sui juris. Luis Torres allegedly
159
356
Double units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $168,750.00.
eeeeeeee. Maria Torres is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Windsor, California and is otherwise sui juris. Maria Torres allegedly
Double units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $168,750.00.
ffffffff. Kenny Tran is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Riverside, California and is otherwise sui juris. Kenny Tran allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "fourteen Passport Superior
Condominium units and one Passport Residence Condominium King units, and two 2
Bedroom Grand Suite units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $184,500.00.
gggggggg. Christol Tran is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Riverside, California and is otherwise sui juris. Christol Tran allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "fourteen Passport Superior
Condominium units and one Passport Residence Condominium King units, and two 2
Bedroom Grand Suite units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $184,500.00.
hhhhhhhh. Pauline Traub is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Santa Rosa, California and is otherwise sui juris. Pauline Traub
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, " property from the Elliotts,"
iiiiiiii. Ruth Valdez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of San Lorenzo, California and is otherwise sui juris. Ruth Valdez allegedly
160
356
units, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of $60,000.00.
jjjjjjjj. John Verkaik is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Tulare, California and is otherwise sui juris. John Verkaik allegedly
kkkkkkkk. Jennifer Verkaik is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Tulare, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jennifer Verkaik allegedly
llllllll. Marcela Villagomez is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Laytonville, California and is otherwise sui juris. Marcela Villagomez
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Residence unit, Juan
mmmmmmmm. Kenneth Wallace is, based upon representation of the
Plaintiffs, an adult resident of Arlington, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Kenneth
Wallace allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four Passport Superior
Condominium units, two 2 Bedroom Grand Suites, one Passport Residence
Condominium, King, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $100,000.00.
nnnnnnnn. Kamille Wallace is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Arlington, Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Kamille Wallace allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "four Passport Superior Condominium
161
356
units, two 2 Bedroom Grand Suites, one Passport Residence Condominium, King, Juan
oooooooo. Rolf Walpole is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Mapleton, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Rolf Walpole allegedly
pppppppp. Tangie Walpole is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Mapleton, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Tangie Walpole allegedly
qqqqqqqq. John Webb is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Granbury Texas and is otherwise sui juris. John Webb allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence Condominiums Double
units, one Passport Residence Penthouse unit, one Passport Superior Condominium unit,
Juan Dolio, one The Residence Maxim Bungalow, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$100,000.00.
rrrrrrrr. Terry Webb is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Granbury Texas and is otherwise sui juris. Terry Webb allegedly purchased,
as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two Passport Residence Condominiums Double
units, one Passport Residence Penthouse unit, one Passport Superior Condominium unit,
Juan Dolio, one The Residence Maxim Bungalow, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$100,000.00.
162
356
ssssssss. Harvey Weiler is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Delhi, Ontario, Canada and is otherwise sui juris. Harvey Weiler
Condominium, King, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $13,218.75.
tttttttt. Marlene Weiler is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of Delhi, Ontario, Canada and is otherwise sui juris. Marlene Weiler allegedly
King, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $13,218.75.
uuuuuuuu. Kay Williams is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of West Valley City, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Kay Williams
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two 2 Bedroom Condominium
units and one 1 Bedroom Condominium unit, Cofresi," allegedly in the amount of
$50,000.00.
vvvvvvvv. Mary Lee Williams is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs,
an adult resident of Stockton, California and is otherwise sui juris. Mary Lee Williams
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "property from the Elliotts,"
wwwwwwww. Sandra Win is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs,
an adult resident of San Francisco, California and is otherwise sui juris. Sandra Win
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one unit, Juan Dolio,"
xxxxxxxx. Jeffrey Wolf is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of San Rafael, California and is otherwise sui juris. Jeffrey Wolf allegedly
163
356
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two units," allegedly in the amount of
$36,000.00.
yyyyyyyy. Lolita Wolf is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an adult
resident of San Rafael, California and is otherwise sui juris. Lolita Wolf allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "two units," allegedly in the amount of
$36,000.00.
zzzzzzzz. Kok Kyan Wong is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of San Francisco, California and is otherwise sui juris. Kok Kyan Wong
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Superior
Condominium units," allegedly in the amount of $30,000.00.
aaaaaaaaa. Steven Young is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Abbottstown, California and is otherwise sui juris. teve Young
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Residence
Penthouse units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $101,250.00.
bbbbbbbbb. Rebecca Young is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Abbottstown, California and is otherwise sui juris. Rebecca Young
allegedly purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "three Passport Residence
Penthouse units, Juan Dolio," allegedly in the amount of $101,250.00.
ccccccccc. Martin Zamudio is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Sebastapol, California and is otherwise sui juris. Martin Zamudio
Condominium units, three Passport Residence Condominium units, Juan Dolio,"
164
356
ddddddddd. Estela Zamudio is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Sebastapol, California and is otherwise sui juris. Estela Zamudio
Condominium units, three Passport Residence Condominium units, Juan Dolio,"
eeeeeeeee. Susan Zanayed is, based upon representation of the Plaintiffs, an
adult resident of Layton, Utah and is otherwise sui juris. Susan Zanayed allegedly
purchased, as pled in the Amended Complaint, "one Maxim Bungalow Residence, Juan
27. This Court has jurisdiction over the Counter-Defendants as a result of the
Counter-Defendants having voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction. The Corporate
Defendant Counter-Plaintiffs have not similarly submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of this
Court, as these compulsory counterclaims are brought as a result of their "compulsory" nature,
and for no other reason.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO THE PROMISSORY NOTE COUNTS
OVERVIEW OF THE FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP

INTEREST PRODUCT PROMISSORY NOTES
28. Three of the four owners of Sun Village Juan Dolio Inc., namely Derek Elliott
("Derek"), Ralph Lean ("Lean") and James Catledge ("Catledge") met in the summer of 2005
with Rick Davis ("Davis") at Greenberg Traurig to prepare and outline the compliant sales
documentation for Catledge’s so-called "licensed" sales force.
29. Catledge advised Derek, Davis and Lean that he and his sales representatives
required licenses to sell securities to citizens of the United States.
165
356
30. Based on this representation (false as it turns out) certain of the Elliott Companies
caused to be prepared a "Founders Interest Fee Agreement" for the Residential Beneficial
Interest ("RBI") (Fractional Product) at the Juan Dolio property (the "Juan Dolio Property") for
the Impact sales force. Purchasers of this fractional ownership product would own 1/13 interests
of a specified unit type at the Juan Dolio property.
31. James Catledge was insistent that the Elliott Companies prepare a product
whereby purchasers could purchase with an initial deposit of 50% down with the remaining 50%
paid with a promissory note over a 10 year period with monthly payments of principal and
interest.
32. Greenberg Traurig prepared the promissory notes (the "Notes") for purchasers to
execute alongside the purchase and disclosure documentation. The Notes are self explanatory
and were designed to be fully compliant and enforceable.
33. Catledge advised the Elliott Companies that his sales representatives would
maintain regular contact with the purchasers.
34. With respect to security for the promissory notes, James Catledge argued that
with a 50% deposit, the Elliott Companies should waive any credit check and that if a Note was
not paid the Elliott Companies would have the ability to foreclose on the deposit if necessary.
35. Catledge also demanded that since the Elliott Companies were fully secure with
the Notes that commissions due and owing to him, Impact sales agents, and his DRCI Cook
Islands Trust be paid at the 100% value of the purchase price, not the 50% initial deposit
amount.
36. This pre-payment of 100% commission was in addition to Catledge's
remuneration (in the form of a private airplane, helicopter and his travel expenses).
166
356
37. In all, of the $36,000,000 in Notes due, the Elliott Companies prepaid over
$10,000,000 in commissions and expenses to James Catledge, Impact and his DRCI Cook
Islands Trust.
38. The ability of the Elliott Companies to collect on these Notes was critical to the
stability and completion of the Juan Dolio project and the ability of the Elliott Companies to
deliver product to the various purchasers.
39. The Elliott Companies were unaware of gross misrepresentations made to
purchasers of the fractional ownership interest product by Catledge and his Impact agents.
Specifically, Catledge and his Impact agents were telling purchasers that they would not have to
make payments on their Notes.
40. Once the Elliott Defendants discovered these material misrepresentations being
made by Catledge and his Impact agents, and it became clear that Catledge and his Impact agents
were not going to honor their licensing obligations, the Elliott Companies terminated the
relationship with Catledge and the Impact Entities in June 2008 and served Catledge and Impact
with a demand letter in October of 2008.
41. Notwithstanding the debacle caused by Catledge and the Impact Entities, the
Elliott Companies, upon discovery of the malfeasance of Catledge and the Impact Entities,
attempted to rectify the misrepresentations with purchasers by offering several, more flexible
promissory note options including discounted prepayment options of up to 40%, reduced
monthly payment terms and even the ability to "turn in" and "consolidate" every one in three
fractions for those who had multiple units, further accommodating the purchasers even though
commissions had already been pre-paid.
167
356
42. Approximately $32,000,000 due and owing to SVJD on the Notes is currently
due. This amount takes into account that some units were turned in or consolidated, and some
amounts were paid on the Notes pursuant to the offer described above.
Description of Notes
43. Purchasers of Fraction Residential Beneficial Interests at Juan Dolio entered into
purchase agreements with Sun Village JD Holdings Inc., Ocean Palms Real Estate (SVG) Inc.,
or Ocean Palms Real Estate (Canada) Inc., depending on the jurisdiction that they made their
purchase through Impact.
44. Sun Village JD Holdings Inc., Ocean Palms Real Estate (SVG) Inc., and Ocean
Palms Real Estate (Canada) Inc., (the "Lenders") were initially in privity with Counter-
Defendants that executed the Notes.
45. The Lenders have assigned their rights and interests of the Notes to Sun Village
Juan Dolio Inc. (SVJD) as part of the structure originally designed by Greenberg Traurig.26
46. The following counts are pled against Counter-Defendants who, upon information
and belief, purchased or may have purchased fractional ownership interest product and executed
promissory notes in relation thereto. As noted previously, much of the documentary support for
such claims are not accessible to the Counter-Plaintiffs as a result of the seizure of same by the
Special Master. Accordingly, the Counter-Plaintiffs reserve their rights to amend these Counter-
Claims once they have either (1) had their books and records returned and they have sufficient
time to review same for relevant particulars or (2) obtained such documents through the
discovery process as described below.
26
As has been previously noted, the Corporate Defendants do not have access to their books and records and thus
cannot allege with specificity exactly which Elliott Company assigned its interest to Sun Village Juan Dolio Inc.
Accordingly, the Corporate Defendants reserve the right to further amend this counterclaim once the Corporate
Defendants have their books and records returned, or Plaintiffs provide the Notes pursuant to discovery.
168
356
47. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have occurred, or otherwise
have been waived.
COUNT 1
Elsa Allred – Breach of Promissory Note
48. Counter-Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-47 as if fully set forth herein.
49. This is an action for breach of a promissory note.
50. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Elsa
Allred executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
determined through discovery but upon information and belief, approximately $60,000, to an
Elliott Company to be determined through discovery.
51. As a result of the assignment from such company to SVJD, SVJD holds all right,
title and interest in the Note.
52. Pursuant to the terms of the Note, interest accrues at the rate equal to eight
percent (8%) per annum.
53. The principal amount of the Note is due and payable in 120 equal monthly
installments as per the terms of the Note.
54. This Counter-Defendant failed to pay either the principal or interest on the Note
when due, and thus has defaulted on the Note.
55. Counter-Plaintiffs have suffered, and are entitled to collect damages as a result of
this Counter-Defendant's failure to pay the Note.
56. Counter-Plaintiffs are obligated to pay their attorneys a reasonable fee for their
services.
169
356
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Elsa
Allred in excess of $60,000, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT 2
Steven Anderson – Breach of Promissory Note
59. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief,
Steven Anderson executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
170
356
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Steven
Anderson in excess of $18,750, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
171
356
COUNT 3
Sheri Anderson – Breach of Promissory Note
68. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Sheri
Anderson executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Sheri
Anderson in excess of $18,750, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
172
356
COUNT 4
Joann Antrim – Breach of Promissory Note
77. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Joann
Antrim executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
determined through discovery but upon information and belief, approximately $46,460.96, to an
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Joann
Antrim in excess of $46,460.96, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
173
356
COUNT 5
Garth Atwood – Breach of Promissory Note
86. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Garth
Atwood executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Garth
Atwood in excess of $142,664.11, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
174
356
COUNT 6
Ardith Atwood – Breach of Promissory Note
Ardith Atwood executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ardith
Atwood in excess of $142,664.11, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
175
356
COUNT 7
Laura Baker – Breach of Promissory Note
104. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Laura
Baker executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Laura
Baker in excess of $18,492.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
176
356
COUNT 8
Duane Barney – Breach of Promissory Note
Duane Barney executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Duane
Barney in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
177
356
COUNT 9
Laura Barney – Breach of Promissory Note
122. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Laura
Barney executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Laura
Barney in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
178
356
COUNT 10
Kevin Bell – Breach of Promissory Note
131. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Kevin
Bell executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
through discovery but upon information and belief, approximately $34,297.50, to an Elliott
Company to be determined through discovery.
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kevin
Bell in excess of $34,297.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
179
356
COUNT 11
Isabelle Berrows – Breach of Promissory Note
Isabelle Berrows executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Isabelle
Berrows in excess of $85,429.72, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
180
356
COUNT 12
Stephen Biddulph – Breach of Promissory Note
Stephen Biddulph executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to
be determined through discovery but upon information and belief, approximately $40,000.00, to
an Elliott Company to be determined through discovery.
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Stephen
Biddulph in excess of $40,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
181
356
COUNT 13
Alvin Brandt – Breach of Promissory Note
158. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Alvin
Brandt executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Alvin
Brandt in excess of $32,872.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
182
356
COUNT 14
Irene Brandt – Breach of Promissory Note
167. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Irene
Brandt executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Alvin
Brandt in excess of $32,872.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
183
356
COUNT 15
Patricia Lynne Brogan – Breach of Promissory Note
Patricia Lynne Brogan executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount
to be determined through discovery but upon information and belief, approximately $335,000.00,
to an Elliott Company to be determined through discovery.
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Patricia
Lynne Brogan in excess of $335,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
184
356
COUNT 16
John Bookman – Breach of Promissory Note
185. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, John
Bookman executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant John
Bookman in excess of $31,640.62, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
185
356
COUNT 17
Dawna Brower – Breach of Promissory Note
Dawna Brower executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Dawna
Brower in excess of $37,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
186
356
COUNT 18
Ralph Brower – Breach of Promissory Note
203. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Ralph
Brower executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ralph
Brower in excess of $23,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
187
356
COUNT 19
Spencer Call – Breach of Promissory Note
Spencer Call executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Spencer
Call in excess of $17,675.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
188
356
COUNT 20
Francisco Carmona – Breach of Promissory Note
Francisco Carmona executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant
Francisco Carmona in excess of $47,673.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's
fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
189
356
COUNT 21
Antonio Carreno – Breach of Promissory Note
Antonio Carreno executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Antonio
Carreno in excess of $16,275.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
190
356
COUNT 22
Febronia Carreno – Breach of Promissory Note
Febronia Carreno executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Febronia Carreno in excess of $16,275.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's
191
356
COUNT 23
Gary Casassa – Breach of Promissory Note
248. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Gary
Casassa executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Gary
Casassa in excess of $33,950.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
192
356
COUNT 24
Robert Garcia Ceja – Breach of Promissory Note
Robert Garcia Ceja executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Robert
Garcia Ceja in excess of $32,433.75, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
193
356
COUNT 25
Jose Cendejas – Breach of Promissory Note
266. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Jose
Cendejas executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Jose
Cendejas in excess of $50,203.13, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
194
356
COUNT 26
Michael Conner – Breach of Promissory Note
Michael Conner executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Michael
Conner in excess of $168,752.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
195
356
COUNT 27
Maria Conner – Breach of Promissory Note
284. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Maria
Conner executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Maria
Conner in excess of $168,752.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
196
356
COUNT 28
Darren Cossey – Breach of Promissory Note
Darren Cossey executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Darren
Cossey in excess of $23,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
197
356
COUNT 29
Jennifer Cossey – Breach of Promissory Note
Jennifer Cossey executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Jennifer
Cossey in excess of $23,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
198
356
COUNT 30
Eleanor Crawford – Breach of Promissory Note
Eleanor Crawford executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Eleanor
Crawford in excess of $173,900.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
199
356
COUNT 31
Brent Cromer – Breach of Promissory Note
320. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Brent
Cromer executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Brent
Cromer in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
200
356
COUNT 32
Nancy Dieli – Breach of Promissory Note
Nancy Dieli executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Nancy
Dieli in excess of $18,984.37, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
201
356
COUNT 33
Paul Dunn – Breach of Promissory Note
338. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Paul
Dunn executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Paul
Dunn in excess of $204,750.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
202
356
COUNT 34
Jonathan Elbom – Breach of Promissory Note
Jonathan Elbom executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Jonathan Elbom in excess of $23,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
203
356
COUNT 35
Ramiro Efrain – Breach of Promissory Note
Ramiro Efrain executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ramiro
Efrain in excess of $25,101.56, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
204
356
COUNT 36
Silva Barrera – Breach of Promissory Note
365. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Silva
Barrera executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Silva
Barrera in excess of $25,101.56, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
205
356
COUNT 37
Deanna Faenzi-Glass – Breach of Promissory Note
Deanna Faenzi-Glass executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Deanna
Faenzi-Glass in excess of $120,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
206
356
COUNT 38
Joanne Falkowski – Breach of Promissory Note
Joanne Falkowski executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Joanne
Falkowski in excess of $30,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
207
356
COUNT 39
Charles Felton – Breach of Promissory Note
Charles Felton executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Charles
Felton in excess of $175,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
208
356
COUNT 40
Maria Fernandez – Breach of Promissory Note
Fernandez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Fernandez in excess of $88,941.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
209
356
COUNT 41
Alice Fitzwater – Breach of Promissory Note
410. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Alice
Fitzwater executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Alice
Fitzwater in excess of $18,375.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
210
356
COUNT 42
Gertrude Flood – Breach of Promissory Note
Gertrude Flood executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Gertrude Flood in excess of $15,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
211
356
COUNT 43
Kerry Flynn – Breach of Promissory Note
428. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Kerry
Flynn executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kerry
Flynn in excess of $31,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
212
356
COUNT 44
Thomas Freese – Breach of Promissory Note
Thomas Freese executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Thomas
Freese in excess of $21,675.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
213
356
COUNT 45
John Gardiner – Breach of Promissory Note
Gardiner executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Gardiner in excess of $26,859.37, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
214
356
COUNT 46
Diane Gardiner – Breach of Promissory Note
455. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Diane
Gardiner executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Diane
Gardiner in excess of $26,859.37, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
215
356
COUNT 47
Victor Giron Alvarez – Breach of Promissory Note
Victor Giron Alvarez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Victor
Giron Alvarez in excess of $11,328.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
216
356
COUNT 48
Albino Gonzalez – Breach of Promissory Note
Albino Gonzalez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Albino
Gonzalez in excess of $31,710.94, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
217
356
COUNT 49
Ana Gonzalez – Breach of Promissory Note
482. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Ana
Gonzalez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ana
Gonzalez in excess of $31,710.94, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
218
356
COUNT 50
Jose Gurrola – Breach of Promissory Note
Gurrola executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Gurrola in excess of $15,820.32, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
219
356
COUNT 51
Sonia Gurrola – Breach of Promissory Note
500. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Sonia
Gurrola executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Sonia
Gurrola in excess of $15,820.32, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
220
356
COUNT 52
Brian Hall – Breach of Promissory Note
509. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Brian
Hall executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Brian
Hall in excess of $14,062.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
221
356
COUNT 53
Bruce Hall – Breach of Promissory Note
518. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Bruce
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Bruce
222
356
COUNT 54
Tyler Hall – Breach of Promissory Note
527. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Tyler
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Tyler
223
356
COUNT 55
Raymond Handy – Breach of Promissory Note
Raymond Handy executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Raymond Handy in excess of $26,437.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
224
356
COUNT 56
Meghan Handy – Breach of Promissory Note
Meghan Handy executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Meghan
Handy in excess of $26,437.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
225
356
COUNT 57
Clayton Hansen – Breach of Promissory Note
Clayton Hansen executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Clayton
Hansen in excess of $156,152.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
226
356
COUNT 58
Alyson Hansen – Breach of Promissory Note
Alyson Hansen executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Alyson
Hansen in excess of $156,152.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
227
356
COUNT 59
Thomas Harp – Breach of Promissory Note
Thomas Harp executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Harp in excess of $63,281.25, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
228
356
COUNT 60
Rick Hawker – Breach of Promissory Note
581. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Rick
Hawker executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Rick
Hawker in excess of $138,003.12, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
229
356
COUNT 61
Dennis Haworth – Breach of Promissory Note
Dennis Haworth executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Dennis
Haworth in excess of $63,281.25, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
230
356
COUNT 62
Klaus Hofmann – Breach of Promissory Note
599. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Klaus
Hofmann executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Klaus
Hofmann in excess of $50,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
231
356
COUNT 63
Gary House – Breach of Promissory Note
House executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
House in excess of $47,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
232
356
COUNT 64
Trent Hudson – Breach of Promissory Note
617. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Trent
Hudson executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Trent
Hudson in excess of $19,828.12, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
233
356
COUNT 65
Valerie Hudson – Breach of Promissory Note
Valerie Hudson executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Valerie
Hudson in excess of $19,828.12, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
234
356
COUNT 66
Gilbert Ireugas – Breach of Promissory Note
Gilbert Ireugas executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Gilbert
Ireugas in excess of $15,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
235
356
COUNT 67
Cheryl Jacks – Breach of Promissory Note
Cheryl Jacks executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Cheryl
Jacks in excess of $70,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
236
356
COUNT 68
Kay Lynn Jacobson – Breach of Promissory Note
653. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Kay
Lynn Jacobson executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kay
Lynn Jacobson in excess of $37,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
237
356
COUNT 69
Alan Jenkins – Breach of Promissory Note
662. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Alan
Jenkins executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Alan
Jenkins in excess of $10,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
238
356
COUNT 70
Gilbert Jing – Breach of Promissory Note
Gilbert Jing executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Gilbert
Jing in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
239
356
COUNT 71
Frank Junio – Breach of Promissory Note
680. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Frank
Junio executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Frank
Junio in excess of $56,249.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
240
356
COUNT 72
Rhonda Junio – Breach of Promissory Note
Rhonda Junio executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Rhonda
Junio in excess of $56,249.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
241
356
COUNT 73
John Kassel – Breach of Promissory Note
Kassel executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Kassel in excess of $129,550.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
242
356
COUNT 74
Patricia Kassel – Breach of Promissory Note
Patricia Kassel executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Patricia
Kassel in excess of $129,550.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
243
356
COUNT 75
Vernon Killen – Breach of Promissory Note
Vernon Killen executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Vernon
Killen in excess of $47,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
244
356
COUNT 76
Sean Kirby – Breach of Promissory Note
725. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Sean
Kirby executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Sean
Kirby in excess of $5,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
245
356
COUNT 77
Carol Kitt – Breach of Promissory Note
734. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Carol
Kitt executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Carol
Kitt in excess of $31,640.62, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
246
356
COUNT 78
Roberta Kitt – Breach of Promissory Note
Roberta Kitt executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Roberta
Kitt in excess of $116,243.75, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
247
356
COUNT 79
Warenetta Lane – Breach of Promissory Note
Warenetta Lane executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Warenetta Lane in excess of $103,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
248
356
COUNT 80
James Lawrence – Breach of Promissory Note
761. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, James
Lawrence executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant James
Lawrence in excess of $67,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
249
356
COUNT 81
Wendy Lawrence – Breach of Promissory Note
Wendy Lawrence executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Wendy
Lawrence in excess of $67,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
250
356
COUNT 82
Richard Lee – Breach of Promissory Note
Richard Lee executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Richard
Lee in excess of $180,483.75, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
251
356
COUNT 83
May Lee – Breach of Promissory Note
788. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, May
Lee executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant May
Lee in excess of $180,483.75, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
252
356
COUNT 84
Wayland Lee – Breach of Promissory Note
Wayland Lee executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Wayland Lee in excess of $31,546.88, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
253
356
COUNT 85
Barbara Lewis – Breach of Promissory Note
Barbara Lewis executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Barbara
Lewis in excess of $25,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
254
356
COUNT 86
Jose Manuel Leyva Aguilar – Breach of Promissory Note
Manuel Leyva Aguilar executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount
services.
Manuel Leyva Aguilar in excess of $6,328.12, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's
255
356
COUNT 87
Earl Linebaugh – Breach of Promissory Note
824. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Earl
Linebaugh executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Earl
Linebaugh in excess of $16,875.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
256
356
COUNT 88
Rita Linebaugh – Breach of Promissory Note
833. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Rita
Linebaugh executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Rita
Linebaugh in excess of $16,875.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
257
356
COUNT 89
Ed Looper – Breach of Promissory Note
842. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Ed
Looper executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ed
Looper in excess of $14,062.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
258
356
COUNT 90
Findencio Lopez – Breach of Promissory Note
Findencio Lopez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Findencio Lopez in excess of $10,546.88, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
259
356
COUNT 91
Tiburcio Lopez – Breach of Promissory Note
Tiburcio Lopez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Tiburcio Lopez in excess of $36,914.08, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
260
356
COUNT 92
Douglas Madsen – Breach of Promissory Note
Douglas Madsen executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Douglas
Madsen in excess of $71,622.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
261
356
COUNT 93
Cheryl Madsen – Breach of Promissory Note
Cheryl Madsen executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Cheryl
Madsen in excess of $71,622.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
262
356
COUNT 94
Erika Lopez – Breach of Promissory Note
887. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Erika
Lopez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Erika
Lopez in excess of $71,622.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
263
356
COUNT 95
Ismael Mazno Alvarez – Breach of Promissory Note
Ismael Mazno Lopez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ismael
Mazno Lopez in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
264
356
COUNT 96
Angel Maravilla – Breach of Promissory Note
905. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Angel
Maravilla executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Angel
Maravilla in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
265
356
COUNT 97
Piedad Maravilla – Breach of Promissory Note
Piedad Maravilla executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Piedad
Maravilla in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
266
356
COUNT 98
Anthony Martin – Breach of Promissory Note
Anthony Martin executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Anthony Martin in excess of $84,244.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
267
356
COUNT 99
Ozzie Martin, Jr. – Breach of Promissory Note
932. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Ozzy
Martin, Jr. executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ozzy
Martin, Jr. in excess of $19,782.62, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
268
356
COUNT 100
William Matz – Breach of Promissory Note
William Matz executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant William
Matz in excess of $46,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
269
356
COUNT 101
Erica Matz – Breach of Promissory Note
950. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Erica
Matz executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Erica
Matz in excess of $46,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
270
356
COUNT 102
Kyle McArthur – Breach of Promissory Note
959. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Kyle
McArthur executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kyle
McArthur in excess of $33,750.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
271
356
COUNT 103
Paul McKenna – Breach of Promissory Note
968. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Paul
McKenna executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Paul
McKenna in excess of $20,625.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
272
356
COUNT 104
Alisa Krinsky McKenna – Breach of Promissory Note
977. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Alisa
Krinsky McKenna executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Alisa
Krinsky McKenna in excess of $20,625.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's
273
356
COUNT 105
Karel Mojzis – Breach of Promissory Note
986. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Karel
Mojzis executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Karel
Mojzis in excess of $10,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
274
356
COUNT 106
Shirley Moore – Breach of Promissory Note
Shirley Moore executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Shirley
Moore in excess of $386,297.05, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
275
356
COUNT 107
Thomas Musgrove – Breach of Promissory Note
Thomas Musgrove executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to
services.
Musgrove in excess of $74,882.81, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
276
356
COUNT 108
Don Myres – Breach of Promissory Note
1013. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Don
Myres executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Don
Myres in excess of $97,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
277
356
COUNT 109
Shirley Myres – Breach of Promissory Note
Shirley Myres executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Shirley
Myres in excess of $97,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
278
356
COUNT 110
Sergio Navarro – Breach of Promissory Note
Sergio Navarro executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Sergio
Navarro in excess of $177,820.32, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
279
356
COUNT 111
Rosa Navarro – Breach of Promissory Note
1040. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Rosa
Navarro executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Rosa
Navarro in excess of $177,820.32, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
280
356
COUNT 112
Daniel Nielson – Breach of Promissory Note
Daniel Nielson executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Daniel
Nielson in excess of $17,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
281
356
COUNT 113
Roberta O'Brion – Breach of Promissory Note
Roberta O'Brion executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Roberta
O'Brion in excess of $5,273.44, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
282
356
COUNT 114
Alberto Orozco – Breach of Promissory Note
Alberto Orozco executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Alberto
Orozco in excess of $56,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
283
356
COUNT 115
Norma Orozco – Breach of Promissory Note
Norma Orozco executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Norma
Orozco in excess of $56,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
284
356
COUNT 116
Mario Ortiz – Breach of Promissory Note
1085. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Mario
Ortiz executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Mario
Ortiz in excess of $10,546.88, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
285
356
COUNT 117
Loredana Ortiz – Breach of Promissory Note
Loredana Ortiz executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Loredana Ortiz in excess of $10,546.88, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
286
356
COUNT 118
Matthew Parente – Breach of Promissory Note
Matthew Parente executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Matthew Parente in excess of $10,546.88, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
287
356
COUNT 119
Jose Pena – Breach of Promissory Note
Pena executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
Pena in excess of $112,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
288
356
COUNT 120
Rafaela Pena – Breach of Promissory Note
Rafaela Pena executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Rafaela
Pena in excess of $112,500.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
289
356
COUNT 121
Guadalupe Perez – Breach of Promissory Note
Guadalupe Perez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Guadalupe Perez in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
290
356
COUNT 122
Felipe Perez– Breach of Promissory Note
Felipe Perez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Felipe
Perez in excess of $50,625.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
291
356
COUNT 123
Maria Perez– Breach of Promissory Note
Perez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
Perez in excess of $50,625.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
292
356
COUNT 124
Milton Petit– Breach of Promissory Note
Milton Petit executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Milton
Petit in excess of $31,087.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
293
356
COUNT 125
Nolan Phillips– Breach of Promissory Note
1166. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Nolan
Phillips executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Nolan
Phillips in excess of $5,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
294
356
COUNT 126
Jennie Phillips– Breach of Promissory Note
Jennie Phillips executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Jennie
Phillips in excess of $5,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
295
356
COUNT 127
Charles Puckett– Breach of Promissory Note
Charles Puckett executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Charles
Puckett in excess of $45,122.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
296
356
COUNT 128
Randy Pullman – Breach of Promissory Note
Randy Pullman executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Randy
Pullman in excess of $6,328.12, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
297
356
COUNT 129
Kevin Rainey – Breach of Promissory Note
1202. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Kevin
Rainey executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kevin
Rainey in excess of $39,376.88, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
298
356
COUNT 130
Cindy Rainey – Breach of Promissory Note
1211. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Cindy
Rainey executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Cindy
Rainey in excess of $39,376.88, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
299
356
COUNT 131
Lowell Rice – Breach of Promissory Note
Lowell Rice executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Lowell
Rice in excess of $126,305.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
300
356
COUNT 132
Linda Rice – Breach of Promissory Note
1229. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Linda
Rice executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Linda
Rice in excess of $126,305.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
301
356
COUNT 133
Abel Rocha – Breach of Promissory Note
1238. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Abel
Rocha executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Abel
Rocha in excess of $20,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
302
356
COUNT 134
Juan Rodriguez, Jr. – Breach of Promissory Note
1247. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Juan
Rodriguez, Jr. executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Juan
Rodriguez, Jr. in excess of $5,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
303
356
COUNT 135
Judith Rogers – Breach of Promissory Note
1256. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Judith
Rogers executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Judith
Rogers in excess of $42,187.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
304
356
COUNT 136
Joe Rossiter – Breach of Promissory Note
1265. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Joe
Rossiter executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Joe
Rossiter in excess of $108,437.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
305
356
COUNT 137
Ima Jean Rossiter – Breach of Promissory Note
1274. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Ima
Jean Rossiter executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ima
Jean Rossiter in excess of $108,437.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
306
356
COUNT 138
Angela Simas – Breach of Promissory Note
Angela Simas executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Angela
Simas in excess of $21,093.75, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
307
356
COUNT 139
Danou Sisa-At – Breach of Promissory Note
Danou Sisa-At executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Danou
Sisa-At in excess of $44,375.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
308
356
COUNT 140
Jared Skelton – Breach of Promissory Note
1301. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Jared
Skelton executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Jared
Skelton in excess of $6,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
309
356
COUNT 141
Jenny Skelton – Breach of Promissory Note
1310. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Jenny
Skelton executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Jenny
Skelton in excess of $6,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
310
356
COUNT 142
Jim Sniezko – Breach of Promissory Note
1319. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Jim
Sniezko executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Jim
Sniezko in excess of $36,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
311
356
COUNT 143
James Soltis – Breach of Promissory Note
1328. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, James
Soltis executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant James
Soltis in excess of $22,603.12, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
312
356
COUNT 144
Rosalind Soltis – Breach of Promissory Note
Rosalind Soltis executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Rosalind Soltis in excess of $22,603.12, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
313
356
COUNT 145
Martha Spence – Breach of Promissory Note
Martha Spence executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Martha
Spence in excess of $8,400.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
314
356
COUNT 146
Sam Syliphone – Breach of Promissory Note
1355. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Sam
Syliphone executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Sam
Syliphone in excess of $5,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
315
356
COUNT 147
Bill Tabbert – Breach of Promissory Note
1364. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Bill
Tabbert executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Bill
Tabbert in excess of $73,968.76, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
316
356
COUNT 148
Linda Tabbert – Breach of Promissory Note
1373. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Linda
Tabbert executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Linda
Tabbert in excess of $73,968.76, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
317
356
COUNT 149
Maria Tapia – Breach of Promissory Note
Tapia executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
Tapia in excess of $98,437.50, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
318
356
COUNT 150
Gary Thompson – Breach of Promissory Note
Thompson executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Thompson in excess of $46,094.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
319
356
COUNT 151
Kerry Thompson – Breach of Promissory Note
1400. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Kerry
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kerry
320
356
COUNT 152
Steve Thompson – Breach of Promissory Note
1409. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Steve
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Steve
321
356
COUNT 153
Luis Torres – Breach of Promissory Note
1418. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Luis
Torres executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Luis
Torres in excess of $84,375.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
322
356
COUNT 154
Maria Torres – Breach of Promissory Note
Torres executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Torres in excess of $84,375.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
323
356
COUNT 155
Kenny Tran – Breach of Promissory Note
Kenny Tran executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kenny
Tran in excess of $92,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
324
356
COUNT 156
Christol Tran – Breach of Promissory Note
Christol Tran executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Christol
Tran in excess of $92,250.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
325
356
COUNT 157
Pauline Traub – Breach of Promissory Note
Pauline Traub executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Pauline
Traub in excess of $80,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
326
356
COUNT 158
Ruth Valdez – Breach of Promissory Note
1463. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Ruth
Valdez executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Ruth
Valdez in excess of $30,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
327
356
COUNT 159
John Verkaik – Breach of Promissory Note
Verkaik executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Verkaik in excess of $7,033.75, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
328
356
COUNT 160
Jennifer Verkaik – Breach of Promissory Note
Jennifer Verkaik executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Jennifer
Verkaik in excess of $7,033.75, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
329
356
COUNT 161
Kenneth Wallace – Breach of Promissory Note
Kenneth Wallace executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kenneth
Wallace in excess of $50,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
330
356
COUNT 162
Kamille Wallace – Breach of Promissory Note
Kamille Wallace executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kamille
Wallace in excess of $50,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
331
356
COUNT 163
Rolf Walpole – Breach of Promissory Note
1508. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Rolf
Walpole executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Rolf
Walpole in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
332
356
COUNT 164
Tangie Walpole – Breach of Promissory Note
Tangie Walpole executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Tangie
Walpole in excess of $28,125.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
333
356
COUNT 165
John Webb – Breach of Promissory Note
Webb executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
Webb in excess of $50,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
334
356
COUNT 166
Terry Webb – Breach of Promissory Note
1535. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Terry
Webb executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Terry
Webb in excess of $50,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
335
356
COUNT 167
Harvey Weiler – Breach of Promissory Note
Harvey Weiler executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Harvey
Weiler in excess of $6,609.37, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
336
356
COUNT 168
Marlene Weiler – Breach of Promissory Note
Marlene Weiler executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Marlene
Weiler in excess of $6,609.37, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
337
356
COUNT 169
Mary Lee Williams – Breach of Promissory Note
1562. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Mary
Lee Williams executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Mary
Lee Williams in excess of $36,940.96, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees,
338
356
COUNT 170
Sandra Win – Breach of Promissory Note
Sandra Win executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Sandra
Win in excess of $6,328.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
339
356
COUNT 171
Jeffrey Wolf – Breach of Promissory Note
Jeffrey Wolf executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Jeffrey
Wolf in excess of $18,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
340
356
COUNT 172
Lolita Wolf – Breach of Promissory Note
1589. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Lolita
Wolf executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be determined
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Lolita
Wolf in excess of $18,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
341
356
COUNT 173
Kok Kyan Wong – Breach of Promissory Note
1598. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Kok
Kyan Wong executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Kok
Kyan Wong in excess of $15,000.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
342
356
COUNT 174
Steven Young – Breach of Promissory Note
1607. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Steve
Young executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Steven
Young in excess of $50,625.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
343
356
COUNT 175
Rebecca Young – Breach of Promissory Note
Rebecca Young executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Rebecca
Young in excess of $50,625.00, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such
344
356
COUNT 176
Martin Zamudio – Breach of Promissory Note
Martin Zamudio executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Martin
Zamudio in excess of $96,820.32, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
345
356
COUNT 177
Estela Zamudio – Breach of Promissory Note
1634. On a date to be determined through discovery, upon information and belief, Estela
Zamudio executed and delivered a promissory note (the "Note") in the face amount to be
services.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendant Estela
Zamudio in excess of $96,820.32, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and
346
356
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFFS' ABUSE OF PROCESS
1641. Upon information and belief, Catledge and Michael Diaz, Jr., managing partner of
Diaz Reus, decided to exploit a group of investors (Rick Hawker, Ruben Meja, David
Rocheford, Richard Smith, Norm Sorensen, Steve Thompson and Martha Valeria), who had
formed a committee that wished to sue the Elliotts, called the "EClient Committee" ("ECC").
1642. The ECC – through the use of the internet (www.eclientscom.com) and telephone
solicitation – had been recruiting investors to join in a collective action against the Elliott
Defendants. James Catledge was a financial backer and participant – if not the mastermind as
well – of this group.
1643. Initially, the ECC required each plaintiff investor to contribute one percent of
their investment to the ECC to pay attorneys’ fees.27
U.S. Litigation
1644. Sometime in November, 2008, the ECC was convinced to retain the Diaz Reus
law firm to "investigate the actions of Derek & Fred Elliott (Elliotts) and their representatives in
connection with the sale of fractional real estate, residences products and other interests in the
Dominican Republic referred by Impact, Impact Net Worth, Net Worth Solutions and/or other
related entities and individuals."28
1645. On November 13, 2008, Diaz wrote a letter to the members of the ECC informing
them that James Catledge and Impact officers Tom O’Hagan and John Thomson had contributed
27
Subsequently, the amount increased to 1.5% and then 2%. After these contributions were insufficient to meet the
mounting attorneys’ fees and costs, the Diaz Reus law firm began sending the individual investors bills for their
pro-rated share of the outstanding fees and costs. The bills did not explain how the fees and costs were incurred or
how the division of fees and costs were allocated across the investors.
28
See The Elliott Defendants' Motion to Disqualify Counsel From Diaz Reus and Arnstein & Lehr, LLP for
Conflicts of Interest and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (the "Motion to Disqualify Counsel") [D.E. 617],
347
356
to the ECC Retainer Fund and that the ECC would not sue these individuals or Impact in any
legal action.29
1646. Over the ensuing four (4) months, the Diaz Reus team reviewed "hundreds of
thousands" of documents30 and used the ruse of criminal prosecution to purportedly "flip"
Gregory Clark, the Elliott Companies' former Chief Financial Officer, and improperly extract
confidential and privileged information from him regarding the operations of the Elliott Group of
Companies.31
1647. In a February 17, 2009, conference call with investors and ECC Clients, Diaz told
the investors that he had proof that they were victimized by the Elliotts, and not Catledge:
There is overwhelming evidence that everyone that is on the phone is a victim of

a million, several million dollars, hundreds of millions of dollar, in fraud. We
have the evidence, not just the testimony. We have the actual documents that
support the allegations that you were victimized. Not by the sales groups but by
the Elliotts. We have worked tirelessly since around December when we first
received the documents, and continue to receive additional documents that
corroborate that you were victims of this massive fraud.
Motion to Disqualify Counsel, Transcript of February 17, 2009 Conference Call at 6,

contained in Declaration of Rob Buenaflor [D.E. 173-10], Exhibit 5 (emphasis added).
1648. During this same conference call, Richard Smith, head of the ECC, explained the
Diaz’ strategy: "[W]e’re taking the kind of action that when we launch this lawsuit it will be so
overwhelming that the battle will be won at the time we launch."32
exhibit 4 at 1. A true and correct copy of the Motion to Disqualify Counsel with accompanying exhibits is attached
hereto as "Exhibit B."
29
See Exhibit B, id 4 at 2.
30
Declaration of Rob Buenaflor, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
31
R. Farzad, Big Game Asset Hunters, attached hereto as Exhibit D..
32
See Exhibit C, id.
348
356
1649. On March 3, 2009, the ECC "launched" its litigation by having Klaus Hofmann
file a 53-page RICO complaint. The Hofmann complaint was signed by Hilda Piloto of Arnstein
& Lehr, LLP and not Michael Diaz or any attorney from his firm. Diaz used Piloto as a front to
avoid the appearance of impropriety arising from a conflict of interest between his then clients,
the innocent investors and Catledge and his Impact agent investors.
1650. Subsequently, on March 13, 2009, Aurelio Aguilar and 414 former Impact agents
filed a RICO complaint that simply parroted the Hofmann complaint, including attaching
Hofmann’s contracts as exhibits.
1651. On March 16, 2009, Diaz sent another letter to the 737 members of the ECC
informing them that he has filed two lawsuits "in an effort to assist you in recovering your
investment and protecting your interests in the fractional interests and or residence investment
products that you purchased in the Dominican Republic from the Elliotts."33 Diaz also advised
that he had been retained to represent Catledge in a Utah lawsuit and other actions and informed
his clients that Catledge has been "instrumental in providing . . .information" and that they have
"collective interests in this litigation against the Elliott Defendants."34
The Turks and Caicos Islands Litigation
1652. On March 3, 2009, a combination of so-called "innocent investors" (Klaus
Hoffman, David Rocheford, and Steve Thompson) and Impact agent investors (Norman
Sorensen) filed a class action in the Turks and Caicos Islands on behalf of "all other persons,
which I estimate to number about 1500, who form a class of persons who have contracted with
33
See Exhibit E, id.
34
See Exhibit B, id. at 4.
349
356
the Defendants concerning the acquisition of time shares, and fractional condominium interests
in resorts located in Puerto Plata and Juan Dolio in the Dominican Republic."35
1653. This combination of purchasers also took an ex parte TRO obtained in the U.S. to
the Turks and Caicos Islands and used it to obtain an ex parte TRO from the Turks and Caicos
Islands court.
1654. In obtaining the Turks and Caicos TRO, Plaintiffs and their counsel never
informed the Turks and Caicos court of the expiration of the U.S. TRO, and made additional
misrepresentations concerning the background and status of this matter. After the Turks and
Caicos court learned of the Plaintiffs’ deceit, on April 9, 2009 the court discharged the TRO,
stating:
This case causes me some disquiet. The timing of an application of this nature
at the same time as a similar action in Florida, the failure to mention so
many clearly important material facts in an affidavit prepared by an
attorney specifically for an ex parte application, the subsequent manner in
which the order was publicized and the failure to take similar action to advise of
the amendment to the original order all add to that disquiet.
Motion to Disqualify, Reason for Decision dated April 20, 2009, attached as Exhibit 12.
(emphasis added).
The Dominican Republic Litigation
1655. On May 1, 2009 and May 29, 2009, the two groups of investors each obtained ex
parte TROs from two different Dominican Republic courts, freezing the Elliott Companies'
assets and endangering (and ultimately preventing) the completion of the Juan Dolio resort.36
1656. In obtaining the TRO, Catledge and his counsel (the Diaz Law Firm) informed the
court that the United States and the Turks and Caicos Islands entered TROs, and never told the
35
See Exhibit F, id.
36
See Compositie Exhibit G, id.
350
356
court that this Court allowed the U.S. TRO to expire and that the Turks and Caicos Islands’ court
discharged its ex parte TRO.37
Effect of Counter-Defendants' Abuse of Process on Corporate Defendants
1657. As a direct and proximate result of Counter-Defendants' (and the former Aguilar
Plaintiffs) abuse of process in the United States, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Dominican
to the Corporate Defendants and, indeed, the Counter-Defendants.
1660. As a result of the abuse of process employed by the Counter-Defendants, the
entire equity value of the Corporate Defendants has been obliterated, thus destroying any chance
of recovery for the Plaintiffs from the sale of Corporate Defendant assets.
COUNT 178
All Counter-Defendants – Abuse of Process
1661. Counter-Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-47 and 1641-1660 as if fully set forth
herein.
1662. As described above, Counter-Defendants used the legal process and the courts
wrongfully.
37
See id.
351
356
1663. As a direct and proximate result of Counter-Defendants' (and the former Aguilar
Plaintiffs) abuse of process in the United States, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Dominican
to the Corporate Defendants and, indeed, the Counter-Defendants.
1666. As a result of the abuse of process employed by the Counter-Defendants, the
entire equity value of the Corporate Defendants has been obliterated, thus destroying any chance
of recovery for the Counter-Defendants from the sale of Corporate Defendant assets.
1667. Plaintiffs had an ulterior motive in such abusive tactics in that they sought to strip
the equity out of the Elliott Companies and divest the Elliotts from management of the Elliott
Companies, and illegal, improper and perverted use of process.
Counter-Defendants illegal, improper and perverted use of process.
services.
352
356
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plainitffs demand judgment against Counter-Defendants in
excess of $120,000,000, along with costs of this action, interest, attorney's fees, and such other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: February 1, 2010

Miami, Florida
s/ James C. Moon
James C. Moon, Esquire
Fla. Bar No: 938211
jmoon@melandrussin.com
MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 Wachovia Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-6363
Telecopy: (305) 358-1221
Attorneys for Corporate Defendants
353
356
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served via Court Notice of Electronic Filing on all registered users on the attached service list on
February 1, 2010.
s/ James C. Moon
James C. Moon
354
356
SERVICE LIST
HOFFMAN, et. al. v. EMI RESORTS, INC., et. al.,

Case No. 09-20526-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY
United State District Court, Southern District of Florida
Thomas E. Scott
scott@csklegal.com
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
9150 South Dadeland Blvd.
Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305)350-5300
Facsimile: (305)373-2294
Special Master
Served via Electronic Mail
Carlos F. Concepcion, Esq.

cconcepcion@cfclaw.com
Concepcion Sexton & Martinez
355 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1250
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305)444-6669
Facsimile: (305)444-3665
Attorney for Enrique De Marchena and De Marchena Kaluche & Asocidos
Michael Diaz, Jr., Esq.

mdiaz@drrtlaw.com
Diaz Reus & Targ LLP
100 SE 2nd Street
Suite 2600
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305)375-9220
Facsimile:(305) 375-8050
Attorney for Klaus Hofmann and Aguilar Plaintiffs
355
356
Kevin H. Fabrikant
khf@khflaw.com
Kevin H. Fabrikant & Associates
450 North Park Road
Suite 300
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954)966-0881
Facsimile: (954)966-0886
Attorney for Inversiones Aviati, S.A.
Russell M. Hayson, Esq.

Russhayson@yahoo.com
Pallotto & Hayson, P.A.
3860 Sheridan Street
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 981-6760
Facsimile: (954)981-9729
Attorney for Inversiones Aviati, S.A.,
Hilda Piloto, Esq.

hpiloto@arnstein.com
Arnstein & Lehr
200 S Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 3600
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-3330
Facsimile: (305) 808-8625
Attorney for Klaus Hofmann and Aguilar Plaintiffs
356

EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim (00634648)

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

EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim (00634648)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 1 of 356

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 09-CIV-20526-GOLD/MCALILEY

JOHN ALEXA, an individual; ELSA ALLRED,

individual; JOANNE FALKOWSKI, an

CHERYL MADSEN, an individual; ISMAEL

individual; JARED SKELTON, an individual;

EMI RESORTS, INC., a foreign corporation;

a foreign corporation; TENEDORA WESSEX

CORPORATE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants"), by and through undersigned counsel, herein responds to Plaintiffs' Amended

paragraph, and say:2

2. The document referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint speaks for

3. The document referred to in paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint speaks for

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in

a. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

b. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

c. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

d. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

e. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

f. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

g. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

h. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

i. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

j. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

k. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

l. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

m. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

n. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

o. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,

deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

p. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations

contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,