Public Record Clarification Regarding Illinois Federal Case 1:20-cv-07395
- Jim Corbett
- Apr 2
- 3 min read
I am publishing this statement to clarify the public record regarding Firbimatic S.P.A., et al. v. Corbett Equipment, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07395, in the Northern District of Illinois.
I dispute the reliability and legal weight of that judgment as a fair reflection of a fully heard case. My position is that my objections concerning service, notice, and jurisdiction were never meaningfully addressed on the merits before default judgment was entered.
Attached to this post is my September 14, 2021 letter filed with the court as Docket Entry 19. In that filing, I informed the court that I had discovered the default judgment and that no process service had ever been received by me. The filing also states that the attempted service through the California Secretary of State was directed to a United States Post Office address, not received by me, and was returned to sender.
The USPS tracking exhibit attached to that filing states that the item was “Delivered, To Original Sender” on June 14, 2021 in Sacramento, California.
This post does not claim that the judgment has been vacated. It does state clearly that the judgment is disputed, that service and notice were contested, and that the public should not treat the case as an uncontested merits determination.
Anyone reviewing this matter should examine the procedural record carefully and not assume that the existence of a docketed judgment means the underlying issues were fully and fairly heard.
The attached filing is my September 14, 2021 letter, filed as Docket Entry 19, in which I promptly informed the Illinois court that I had discovered the default judgment and that no valid service had ever been received by me. The court refused to address that filing at the time, stating that no formal appearance had been entered, yet later cited my awareness of the proceedings and suggested I had “slept on my rights.” In other words, when I tried to speak up, I was not recognized on procedural grounds; later, that same attempt to alert the court was used against me as proof that I supposedly waited too long. Readers can review the attachment themselves, including the USPS tracking exhibit showing the mailing was returned to the original sender.
The plaintiffs and their counsel were informed of these objections and had the opportunity to correct course after being placed on notice, including through the 2021 filing attached here. Instead of stepping back and addressing the underlying service problem, they continued moving forward in a way that, in my view, damaged my business rather than served justice. Readers can draw their own conclusions, but this is the type of conduct I have been confronting throughout this dispute.
This case was heard only through procedure and never truly heard on the merits of my evidence. None of the evidence I submitted was meaningfully addressed, reviewed, or weighed in a full and fair hearing, which means that, as of today, my side of the record still has not been genuinely heard. I am an individual, and the related company is an INDIVIDUAL LLC; these are not entities that should have been treated as though service through a Secretary of State mailing to a post office address somehow resolved personal service and due process concerns—especially where the attached record shows the mailing was returned to the original sender and never received by me. This entire course of events has, in my view, been deeply malicious and has caused serious harm to my business, reputation, and ability to operate fairly in the marketplace.
James Joseph Corbett
Corbett Equipment
Wilmington, North Carolina
#Firbimatic#FirbimaticUSA#CorbettEquipment#JamesCorbett#DisputedJudgment#PublicRecordClarification#DueProcess#ServiceOfProcess#DefaultJudgment#Jurisdiction#ProceduralAbuse#LegalRecord#FederalCase#BusinessHarm#ReputationDamage#DryCleaning#DryCleaningIndustry#DryCleaningEquipment#DryCleaningMachines#CommercialLaundry#IndustrialLaundry#GarmentCare#LaundryIndustry#TrademarkDispute#CopyrightDispute
Comments