Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
IOMP
WPR
aga
CLERK aF THE COURT
I 12 41 PB'o!
7
8
DISTRICT COURT
"2
( @
x+.
<*%-
,? i
IO
11
12
CASENO./'
13
14
Plaiatiff, vs.
MASTERFILE CORPORATION, a
15
16
17
18
19 20
21
22
himself and all othm similarly situated, and on behalf ofall aggrieved
23
24
This Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein pursuant to bud, impIied
pvenant of good faith and fair dding and deceptive trade practices.
1.
he acts complahd ofin this Complaint are relevant t the business conducted in Clark o
zounty.
3
4
5
3,
7
8
9
doing business in
IO
I1
12
'
countries around the world. Said corporation i 8 stock photo library providing customers with s
a lmge collectionof Rights-Managed
5.
6.
13
14
place images on custome~ websites so that Masterfile could attempt to extort funds fi-0111 the
end users.
7.
19
1 6 17
18 19
The true names of and capacities of defendants sued as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
to
are unkuown t Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff will mend the Complaint when the true names, o
21
22 23
24
9.
Plaintiff and all other similarlysituated are and at all relevant times were alleged to owe
25
26
27
h d s t Masterfile. Plaintiff hereby brings this action on his own behalf, on behalf of the class o
of all persons similarly situated, and on behalf of all aggrieved by Defendants'actions as
28
alleged.
_-_..
a
1
2
10.
Plaintiff paid for website design Senricss in April 2005 and the website desi@= purchased
images (hereinafter "Images") m Defendant in that year, 2005. Full services were madered to h
Plaintiff by web designer and Plaintiffs website was etctivated. No notice ofclaimed money owed
4
S
6 7
8
was received and Plaintiff was i no way notified of claimed money owed fbr Images until n
9
10
fium Defendant and aftcxwards received notification of claimed funds owed t Masterfile, during o
the time periad often years prior to the filing of this COmpIaint and up to and includingthe entry
II
12
ofjudgment i this action, and who were subject t Defendant's unlawful practices of: 1) n o
t3
14
knowingly defrauding customers i relation to Images; 2 unfair business practbs concerning the n )
enumeratr'onof kwfid usesofweb resoiution images in the Deftmiant's terms and mnctitions of
use; 3) debt collection on the part of Defendant;4) falsification of facts concerning notification of
IS
16
17
18
19
injunctiverelief
12.
20
21
The class consists of d people similarly situated, during the time frame of ten years prior to
22
23 24
2 5
26
27
the filingof this action, up to and includingentxy ofjudgment in this action,and this Plaintiff
28
questions of law and fact common to the class members predominate over any questionsaffecting
3
I
1
2
ndividual members and, on balance,a class action is superior to otha methads available for
d u i a i gthe amtroversy. There is a well defined w m w of interest in the litigation and the jdctn
class is easily ascertairlable;
3
4
6
7
impractical under the circumstanmof this case.Although the exact number of class members i s
unknown to Plaintiff at ti time, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allegesthat there hs
tire a least one hundred simildy situated customers of Defendant. t
9
10
11
b.
Commonality: There are questions of law presented herein which m common to the entire
class of pasons representedby Plaintiff,and Plaintiffs Claims, as hereinafter set firrth, me typical
12
I3
14
(ii)
15
16
warranties;
1 7 18
I9
(iv) whether Defendantsknowingly ampires with its direct customers (web developem) to
prosecute end users of Images as opposed to direct customers of Defendant.
20
21
22
(v)
23
24
Typicality:Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class m m b . PIaintiRand the
2s
members ofthe dass failed to receive adequate infbrmation mncemkg the lawful uses of Images
26
27
iiOm Defendants. PIaintiffand the Class m m h in this case received web resolutionimages
28
..
Q
e
1
iwn the web developers BS end users of the images. Plaintiff,like other class members were
rubjested t unfair debt collection praCtices. o
3.
3
4
Adequacy: Plaintiff i qualifiedto, and will, fairly and adequately protect the interests of s
5
6
7
ach Class member. Plaintiff has no intereststhat are a d v m t the interests of the other class o
members.
e.
8
9
class action will achieve economiesof time,effort and expense as oompared t separate lawsuirs, o
IO
11
t2 13
14
and avoid inoonsistent outcomesbecause the same ismescan be adjudicated in the m e manner
For the entire class. Plaintiff is currently unaware of any p d i n g litigation commenced by MY
States every day by opedy advertisinga one time papent for d Images and purposely 1
IS
16
misleading them on what they claim is a lawfirl use of the Images.Many of the direct cust5masof
17 I8
19
MASTERFILE are web developers,hence after purchasing an image and turning the rights ofthe
web site over to the end user, said end user is prosecuted by Defendant for owing additional sums
br the Images while end user never entered into an agrement with Defendant but with the
aforementionedwebsite designer.
20 21
22 23
24
14. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is knowingly defrauding end users of lmages by stating that
"by concluding a request via the Website to license and download an RF Image, including
prepayment by credit card, (an "RF W b Transadon"), YOU e will be permitted to download one
25
digital copy of the RF hage (the "Licensed RF Image") in a fePspecificfile size for commercial
2 6
27
2a
repduction."Web designa may only have to make a one time paynent for the RF image but
when said image is turned over to the end user Defendant Masterfile conspires with and fiees said
- . ~
I
2
web designer from the contract mterd into upon purchase of a RF image and prosecutes the end
user of the image for additional sums, Plaintiff and all other class members me not, and were not,
first tier customers, the web developers are and were. Plaintiff and all other class members were
3
4
9 6
third Partybeneficiaria.
15.
Plaintiff allegea that Defatdant is in violation of fair debt coIlection practices. This fiIe is
7
8
not in my officeas a collection matter. Thjs is an attempt to effect a sel?lement to avoid OUT client
moving forward for copyright infringement." This i 8 communication received by hfmdant s
9
1 0
fl
12
13
14
regards to the alleged additional fimds owing. NCS RECOVERY CORPORATION is not a legal
innwith the right to prosecute or to seek settlement on the case and hence is falsely filling the
15
16
17
role of an attorney.
16.
18 19
20
PIaintiff alleges that Defendant is i violation of itis deb? wflection pntctices. "If the n
amsmer notifiesthe debt collector i writing within the thirty-day period described i subsection n n
(a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thmf, is disputed, or that the consumer reguests
21
22
the m e and address of the original creditor, !he debt collector shall cease collection of the debt,
or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verificationof the debt or a copy of
a judgment,..."
23
24
Upon requesthg idormation concerning the vdidity of said debt and the guilty
25
f of
26
27
28
._
; - s
I ,
i
2 3
17.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is in violation of filir debt oollem practices. "Any debt
xlllector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall- bring such action
~ n l yn the judicial district or similar legal entity- (A) i which i n
5
6
mmct wed upon; or (B) in which such consumer resides at the wmmmamat of the don."
Defendant has sent a complaint that is intended t be filed in the United States District court o
Southern District of New Y & t Plaintiff. This mplaint is i violation of the aforementioned o o n
title of the U S C because Plaintiff did not Sign a contraa i the Southem District of New Yo& ... n
a
9
IO
II
12
nor did Haintiff reside i said District upon commencement of the action, In addition, this is a n
treat of prosecUtion that has ye! to be Carried out. Hence, i violation, for there is no evidence to n
13
14 15
The actions of Defendants and each of thanare unfhir debt c~llection~ pmdices and
16
Plaintiffand all similarly situated class members have been damaged thereby.
19. Defendants actions are fiartdulent in that they represent the images t be subjed t a one o o
17
18
19
time f e for the express and known purposeof placing the images on a usas website when they
know that that representation is false and the representation is made with the intention ofthe
20
22
23
24
20. That Defendants actions as alleged are an abuse of prooess and amount to extortion and
lm+t
enrichment to Defendants.
2 1.
?2.
2s
26
27
s from
m m t end users.
28
I
2
3.
The Images provided by Ddmdmts breach the atpress and implied warranty of fitness for a
astiCUlarpurpose,
4.
3
4
Defendants have failed and refused to document their right and title to the Images.
All of Defendants' activities as herein alleged are deceptive bade practices.
5
6
5.
The actions of Defendants and each of them were done with maliw, hud, oppression and
B
9
tith a consciencedisregard for the rights of Plaintiff and all similarly situated members ofthe
10
!I
lass and punitive damages are therekre wBITEmted. !8. Wherefore plaintiffprays for damages on his behalf and all similarlysituated membas of
he class as follows:
12
13
14
1.
2.
15 16
4.
5.
17
18
19
6.
For such other and finther relief as to the Court may seem just and proper in
he premises.
2009.
20
21
22
23
24
B THOMASC Y
I ENy EN,ESQ. . S
25
26
27
28
Nevada Bar # 2326 1000 S. Valley View Blvd, Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Attorneys for Plaintiff, I MACHINES, L.L.C. and T
all similarly situated class members