1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MATTHEW STALLONE,

 CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22578-MGC

Plaintiff,

vs. 

MILLIONAIRE MENTOR, INC.,

and JASON STONE

Defendants.

________________________________/

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Defendant, MILLIONAIRE MENTOR, INC. (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through 

undersigned counsel hereby files his Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Copyright Infringement, 

and in support states as follows:

PARTIES 

1. Defendant is without sufficient information to allow it to admit or deny the allegations in 

Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2. Admitted as to Defendant Millionaire Mentor being a Domestic Corporation existing under 

the laws of the State of Delaware, with its corporate headquarters at 5104 SW 131st 

Avenue, Miami, Florida 33175. For the rest of the Paragraph, denied. 

3. The allegation in Paragraph is not directed toward Defendant and therefore no response is 

required. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint are not factual assertions but propositions 

of law for which no response is required.

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 1 of 5
2

5. The allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint are not factual assertions but propositions 

of law for which no response is required.

6. The allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint are not factual assertions but propositions 

of law for which no response is required.

7. The allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint are not factual assertions but propositions 

of law for which no response is required.

8. The allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint are not factual assertions but propositions 

of law for which no response is required.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

9. Defendant is without sufficient information to allow it to admit or deny the allegations in 

Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

10. Defendant is without sufficient information to allow it to admit or deny the allegations in 

Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

11. Defendant is without sufficient information to allow it to admit or deny the allegations in 

Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 

12. Denied. 

13. Denied.

14. Denied

15. Defendant is without sufficient information to allow it to admit or deny the allegations in 

Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 

16. Denied. 

COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 101 ET SEQ

17. Defendant responds as indicated in Paragraphs 1-16 above, as if set forth herein.

18. Defendant is without sufficient information to allow it to admit or deny the allegations in 

Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 

19. The allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint are not factual assertions but propositions 

of law for which no response is required.

20. Denied. 

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 2 of 5
3

21. Denied. 

22. Denied. 

23. Denied. 

24. Denied.

COUNT II: REMOVAL AND ALTERATION OF INTEGRITY OF COPYRIGHT

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 1202

25. Defendant responds as indicated in Paragraphs 1-16 above, as if set forth herein.

26. Denied.

27. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Failure to State a Claim for Copyright Infringement - This cause of action for copyright 

infringement should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be sought 

since the subject matter in controversy is not protected by copyright registration and the 

registration should be refused.

2. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction - This cause of action for copyright infringement 

should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since the subject matter in 

controversy is not protected by copyright registration and the registration should be 

refused.

3. Unauthorized Derivative Work - The work in controversy features proprietary materials 

belonging to third parties which, upon information and belief, have not been properly 

licensed by Plaintiff. The photograph contains, without reserve, architectural designs 

protected by copyright, as well as a source identifier for a motor vehicle of the brand 

Porsche, protected by a trademark. As such, Plaintiff’s work is not an original work of 

authorship, but rather a derivative of the underlying works, and is not subject to copyright 

protection without the express authorization of the underlying work’s rights holders, which 

Plaintiff has neither alleged nor presented proof thereof in his Complaint. 

4. Failure to Establish Originality - The work in controversy features proprietary materials 

belonging to third parties which, upon information and belief, have not been properly 

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 3 of 5
4

licensed by Plaintiff. Aside from these unlicensed proprietary materials, the Work in 

controversy does not feature any other original elements, and therefore Plaintiff has not 

satisfied the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. 

5. Work Not Subject to Copyright - The work in controversy features proprietary materials 

belonging to third parties which, upon information and belief, have not been properly 

licensed by Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff’s work is not subject to copyright protection without 

the express authorization of the underlying work’s rights holders, which Plaintiff has 

neither alleged nor presented proof thereof in his Complaint.

6. Copyright Certificate does not Satisfy Registration Requirement - Under 17 U.S.C.S. § 

411(b), a certificate with inaccurate information does not satisfy the registration 

requirement if the inaccurate information was knowingly included on the application, and 

had the Copyright Office known of the inaccuracy, it would have refused to register the 

copyright. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff had personal knowledge that he was not 

the owner of the underlying works featured in his derivative work, and knowingly provided 

inaccurate information to the U.S. Copyright Office in his application which, had the 

Copyright Office known of the inaccuracy, would have refused to register the copyright. 

7. Copyright Registration Refusal - In any case in which inaccurate information of a copyright 

certificate is alleged, the court shall request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court 

whether the inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the Register of 

Copyrights to refuse registration" 17 USCS § 411; 

8. Non-Ownership of Copyright - Plaintiff is not the owner of one or more Copyrights and 

Trademarks at issue in the underlying works, as a result of which a copyright infringement 

action cannot be maintained. 

9. Copyright Misuse - Plaintiff used the copyright to secure an exclusive right or limited 

monopoly not granted by the Copyright Office and contrary to public policy.

10. License - Defendant was a party to an agreement that gave it permission to employ the 

allegedly copyrighted work.

11. Innocent Infringement - As a result of Defendant’s seeking and obtaining a license from a 

third party to use the Work, it was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts 

constituted an alleged infringement of copyright.

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 4 of 5
5

12. Non-Willful - Defendant's conduct was innocent, non-infringing, and not a willful 

infringement of copyright. 

13. Fair Use - Plaintiffs' claims for relief are barred by the “Fair Use Doctrine” pursuant to 

Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §107. 

14. Indispensable Parties- Plaintiff has failed to join indispensable parties, to wit, the copyright 

owner(s) of the underlying architectural and/or other works, as well as the trademark 

owners(s) of the underlying brand(s). 

15. Unclear Hands- Plaintiff improperly sought a Copyright Registration Certificate for a work 

he had knowledge he did not own copyrights to, and knowingly provided inaccurate 

information to the U.S. Copyright Office in furtherance of improperly obtaining a 

Certificate, and as such has unclean hands to present this cause of action. 

16. Estoppel - Plaintiff’s action is barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 

 

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this Honorable Court for the following relief: for 

dismissal of the Plaintiffs' action with prejudice; for a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff has no 

enforceable copyright; for an advisal from the Register of Copyrights that the inaccurate 

information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration; for an 

order that Plaintiffs' shall take no relief from their complaint herein; for an award of Defendant's 

costs and attorneys' fees herein incurred; and for such further and other relief and the Court deems 

fair and just.

Dated this 28th day of September 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

BY: /S/ SILVINO E. DIAZ

Silvino E. Díaz, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1015534

EPGD BUSINESS LAW

ATTORNEYS FOR 

DEFENDANT

777 SW 37th Ave., Ste. 510

Miami, Florida 33135

T: (786) 837-6787

F: (305) 718-0687

silvino@epgdlaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 5 of 5