it machines vs masterfile / ncs recovery: initial complaint

8/3/2019 IT Machines vs Masterfile / NCS Recovery: Initial Complaint

1/9

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:09-cv-00782-PMP-RJJ Document 1-2 Filed 05/01/09 Page 1 of 9


2/9

Fs : *

123

6789IO1 112131415161718192021222324

IOMP'HOMAS HRISTENSEN. ESQ.Ievada Bar # 2326:HRISTENSEN LAW OFFICES, L.L.C.000S. Valley View Blvd. WP R I 12 41 PB'o!agasVegas, Nevada 891074ttomey for Plaintiff,ITMACHMES, L,LC.,l/b/a SINGLEPOINT NETWORKS,ndividually, and on behalfof all similarlyituated CIessMembers CLERK aF THE COURT(@"-i?+.DISTRICTCOURT 2


3/9

i L

123456789IOI 112

' 13141916171819t o212223242526

2728

1.

he acts complahd ofin thisComplaintarerelevant to thebusiness conducted in Clarkzounty.

Venue is p r o p in tbis CourtbecausePlaintiff conducted businessin ClarkCounty and

PARTIESAND BACKGROUND3,basedinLasVegas New&.4. Defendant MASTERFILE CO WORA TION is a - doing business incountries around the world. Said corporation is 8 stock photo library providing customerswitha lmge collectionof Rights-Managed and Royalty-Free photos and illustrations.5 . NCS RECOVERY CORPORATION, a full service oollection agency,6. PHUSION 25 is a representative website designer who conspiredwith Masterfiletoplace images on custome~ ebsitesso that Masterfile could attempt to extort funds fi-0111heend users.7."Defendants"orpurposesof this Complaint.8.are unkuownto Plaintiffat this time.Plaintiffwill mend theComplaint when the true names,identities, and/or capacities of said defendants becomeknow o Plaintiff.

PlaintB, ITMACHINES, LLC, isa corporationdoing business in s w d ounties and

Each of the Defendants above is refened o herein collectivelyas "MASTERFILE"or

The ruenames of and capacitiesof defendants sued as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

CLASSACTIONALLEGATIONS9. Plaintiff and all other similarlysituatedare and at all relevant times were alleged to oweh d s toMasterfile. Plaintiffhereby brings this action on his own behalf, on behalf of the classof allpersons similarly situated, and on behalf of all aggrieved by Defendants'actionsasalleged.

2



4/9

www- _-_..

1234S6789

10I I12t314IS161718192021222324

25

2627

28

a e10. Plaintiff paid forwebsite designSenricss in April 2005 and he website desi@= purchasedimages hereinafter "Images")h m efendantinthatyear, 2005. Full serviceswere madered toPlaintiff by web designer and Plaintiffswebsitewas etctivated. No noticeof laimed money owedwas received and Plaintiff was innoway notified ofclaimed moneyowed fbr Images untilJanuary 14,2QQ9.Upon receivinga noticeh O Communications, Plaintiffs nternetserviceprovider, Plaintiff immediatelyremoved the websitefromactivity on the World Wide Web.11.fium Defendant and aftcxwardsreceived notificationofclaimedfunds owedtoMasterfile, duringthe time periad oftenyearsprior to the filingof thisCOmpIaintand up to and ncludingthe entryofjudgmentin this action, and who were subject toDefendant'sunlawfulpracticesof:1)knowinglydefrauding customersin relation to Images; 2)unfair business practbs concerning theenumeratr'onofkwfiduses fweb resoiution images in the Deftmiant's termsandmnctitions ofuse; 3) debt collectionon he part of Defendant;4) falsificationo f acts concerningnotification ofalleged fclndsowed toD e f e n h t sby Plaintie 5) Bn otherreoovay authorizedby he impliedoovenantsofgood faith and fairdealing, fairdebt practices collection laws, restitution a dinjunctiverelief12.the filingofthis action,up to andincludingentxyofjudgmentin this action,and this PlaintiffseeksclasscertificationunderNevada Rulesof CivilProcedureRule 23,with respect todl claimsset forth herein for all similarlysituatedpersons miding in the United States ofAmerica duringthe relevantstatutoryperiod.13. This case ismaintainableby Plaintiff underNRCP 23 as a classactionbecauseithequestionsof law and fact common to the classmembers predominateover any questionsaffecting

Plaintiff eekstorqrresenttheclassofdl similarly situatedpersons who received Images

The class consistsofd eople similarly situated, during the time frameoften yearsprior to

3



5/9

r . *

1234S6789101112

. I 31415161718I920212223242s262728

ndividual membersand, on balance, classaction i s superior to othamethads available ordjudicating heamtroversy.There is awell definedw m w f interestin the litigation and theclassis easily ascertairlable;Rimpracticalunder the circumstanmof this case.Although theexactnumber of classmembers isunknown to Plaintiff atthis ime, Plaintiff is informedandbelievesand hereon allegesthattheretireat least one hundred simildy situated customers of Defendant.b. Commonality:There arequestions of law presentedherein whichm ommon to the entireclassofpasons epresentedby Plaintiff,and PlaintiffsClaims, as hereinafterset firrth,me typicalof the claimsof dl classmembers including, butno! limitedto:

Numerosity: Plaintiffsclassis sonumefous that the ndividual oinder of all meinbas is

(i)(ii)warranties;(iii) Whether Mendantsknowingly misleadcustom= as o payment and appropriateuseofImages;

(iv) whetherDefendantsknowinglyampireswith its direct customers(web developem) toprosecute end usersofImages asopposed odirect customers of Defendant.(v)for aparticular purpose.c.members of he dass failed to receiveadequate nfbrmation mncemkg the lawful usesof ImagesiiOmDefendants. PIaintiffand theClassm m h n this case received web resolution mages

Whether Defendants'practiceof notification ofclaimedfundsowingwas unlawhl;Whether Defendants'prosedon ofusers isConsistentwith D&kndant's representationsand

Whether Defendants by theirpracticesbreached expressand implied warrantiesoffitness

Typicality: Plaintiffs claims are ypical of the claims of the Classm m b . PIaintiRand the

4



6/9

... Q

12

3456

7

89IO11t21314IS1617I819202122

23242526272a

eiwn he web developers BS end usersof the images.Plaintiff, ikeotherclassmemberswererubjestedto unfairdebt collection praCtices.3 .ach Classmember. Plaintiff has no interests hat are a d v m to the interests of the other classmembers.e.

class actionwill achieveeconomiesoftime,effort and expense as oompared toseparate lawsuirs,and avoid inoonsistent outcomesbecause thesameismes anbe adjudicated in the m e annerFor theentire class. Plaintiff iscurrentlyunaware of anyp d i n g litigationcommenced by MYc h smember involving the same issuesin the Complaint.f. Public policy consideration:Defemlant isdefhudingcustomersthroughout theUnited - .Stateseveryday by opedy advertisinga one time p ap en t ford1 Images and purposelymisleading them on what they claim is a lawfirluse of the Images.Many of he direct cust5masofMASTERFILE areweb developers,henceafterpurchasing an mageand urning the rightsof heweb site over to the enduser, said end user is prosecuted by Defendant for owingadditional sums

Adequacy: Plaintiff is qualifiedto, and will, fairly andadequatelyprotect the interestsof

Superiority:A Classa c h n adjudication is superiorto theother availablemethods becausea

br he Imageswhileend userneverentered intoan agrement with Defendantbut with theaforementionedwebsite designer.14. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant isknowinglydefrauding end users of lmages by stating that"by concluding a request via the Website to license and download an RF Image, includingprepayment by credit card, (an "RF Web Transadon"), YOUwill be permitted to download onedigital copy of he RF hage (the "LicensedRF mage") in a fePspecificfile size for commercialrepduction."Web d e s i g n amay only have to make a one time paynent for the RF mage butwhen said image is turned over to the end user Defendant Masterfile conspires with and fiees said

5

http://nrww.courthousenews.com/


7/9

- 4

I23496789

10f l1213141516171819202122232425262728

~--.---\nrww.courthousenews.comweb designer from the contract mterd into upon purchaseof a RF image and prosecutes the enduserof he image for additional sums, Plaintiff and all other classmembers me not, and were not,first tier customers,theweb developersare and were. Plaintiffand all other class memberswerethird Partybeneficiaria.15. Plaintiff allegea that Defatdant is in violation of fair debt coIlection practices.This fiIe isnot in my office s a collectionmatter.Thjs s an attempt toeffect a sel?lementto avoid OUT clientmoving forward for copyright infringement." This is 8 communication received by hfmdantNCS FECOVERY CORPORATION. It is a "tblse rqremtation or implication that anyindividual is an attmey or that any comunjcation is firom an attorney."Defendant denies thatthis is a wllection matter when NCS RECOVERY CORPORATION is a wllection agency.De hda nt isFafsifyingtheir intentions.In addition,Defendant claims to be seeking settImentinregards to thealleged additionalfimdsowing. NCS RECOVERY CORPORATION isnot a legalinnwith the right to prosecute or to seek settlement on he case and hence is falsely filling therole ofan attorney.16. PIaintiff alleges that Defendant is in violation of itis deb? wflection pntctices. "If theamsmer notifiesthe debt collectorinwritingwithin the thirty-day perioddescribed in subsection(a) of his section that the debt, or any portion thmf, is disputed, or that the consumer regueststhem e nd address of the original creditor, !hedebt collectorshall cease collection of he debt,or any disputedportion thereof,until he debt collectorobtains verificationof the debt ora copyofa judgment,..." Upon requesthg idormation concerning the vdidity of said debt and the guiltyparty, Defendant respded with m ambiguous m e r and continued to demand either p f flicense orpayment of thedebt.

6

http://nrww.courthousenews.com/http://nrww.courthousenews.com/http://nrww.courthousenews.com/http://nrww.courthousenews.com/


8/9

._ c_- I, w w w . c o u ~; - s I

i234567a9IOI I1213141516171819

20212223242s262728

17. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is in violation of filir debt oollem practices. "Any debtxlllector 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) in which such c o m e r signed themmct wed upon; or (B) in which such consumer resides at the wmmmamatof the don."Defendant has sent a complaint that is intended to be filed in the United States District courtSouthern District ofNew Yo& to Plaintiff. This mplaint isinviolation of the aforementionedtitle of the U.S.C. ecause Plaintiff did not Sign a contraa in the SouthemDistrict of New Yo&nor did Haintiffreside in said District upon commencemento f the action, In addition, this is at reat ofprosecUtionthat hasye! to beCarried out. Hence, in violation, forthere s no evidence towggw that Defendant will actuallyprosme.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEFJa. The actionsofDefendants and each ofthan re unfhirdebt c~ l l ec t ion~mdices andPlaintiffandall similarly situatedclassmembers have been damaged thereby.19. Defendantsactionsare iartdulent in that they represent the imagestobe subjedtoa onetime f e or he express and known purposeofplacing the imageson a usaswebsite when theyknow that that representation is falseand therepresentation is madewith the intention of hecustomer relyingon he representation to their detrimentanddamage.20. ThatDefendantsactions as allegedare an abuseofprooessand amount to extortion andlm+t enrichment to Defendants. I21.?2.m m t end users.

The scheme that Defendants 8re engagedin is a Civil conspiracy.Defendants areengaged in knowing false advertisingfor the purpllse ofextortingW s rom

7



9/9

I: h

I234567B9

10!I

1213141516171819202122232425262728

3. The Images provided by Ddmdmtsbreach the atpressand mpliedwarrantyof fitness for aastiCUlarpurpose,4. Defendants have failed andrefused to document theirright and itle to the Images.5. AllofDefendants'activitiesasherein allegedaredeceptivebadepractices.6. Defendants action are an ntentional inflictionof motional distress.7. TheactionsofDefendantsand each of them were done with maliw, hud, oppression andtith a consciencedisregardfor the rights of Plaintiff and all similarlysituatedmembers ofthelass and punitivedamagesaretherekrewBITEmted.!8. Whereforeplaintiffprays for damagesonhisbehalf and all similarlysituatedmembas ofheclassas follows:

1. General damagesin an amountin excess of $10,000.00;2. Punitivedamages in an amountinexcess of $1 0,OCJO.OO;4. Costs of this suit;5. Attorney's fees;and6. For such other and fintherreliefas to the Courtmay seem just and proper in

he premises.2009.

CHRISTENSEN LA W OFFICES, LLC

B Y y .HOMASC IS EN EN,ESQ.Nevada Bar# 23261000S. Valley View Blvd,Las Vegas, Nevada 89107Attorneys for Plaintiff,ITMACHINES, L.L.C. andall similarlysituated classmembers


it machines vs masterfile / ncs recovery: initial complaint

Documents