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.

________________________________/

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT JASON STONE

Defendant, JASON STONE (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, hereby files his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Copyright Infringement, and 

in support states as follows:

RELEVANT FACTS

1. On June 22nd, 2020, Plaintiff, Matthew Stallone filed the present cause of action. A true 

and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of an alleged copyright infringement and contains two (2) 

causes of action: 

a. Infringement of copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq;

b. Removal and alteration of integrity of copyright management information pursuant 

to 17 U.S.C. § 1202

See Exhibit “A.”

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint is based on the following alleged facts and exhibits attached thereto:

a. Defendant Millionaire Mentor, Inc. (“Millionaire Mentor”) is a Domestic 

Corporation. 

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 1 of 22
2

b. Defendant Jason Stone is an individual and the Founder and Principal of Millionaire 

Mentor. 

c. Defendant Millionaire Mentor is a motivator, mentor, teacher, and social media 

service, which owns, operates, and is solely responsible for the content on its 

commercial website, www.millionairementor.com.

d. Defendants copied and posted Copyrighted Photograph to the Defendant’s 

Millionaire Mentor’s Instagram feed, www.instagram.com/millionaire_mentor. 

e. Defendants used the Copyright Photograph as a full-page advertisement for 

Defendant Millionaire Mentor’s commercial business and website, 

www.millionairementor.com. 

f. Defendants copied and posted Copyright Photograph without license or permission 

of Plaintiff.

See Exhibit “A.”

4. As set forth hereinafter, the Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which 

relief may be granted as a matter of law and should be dismissed with prejudice.

APPLICABLE LAW

5. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) provides for the dismissal of an action for: (2) lack 

of personal jurisdiction; (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and 

(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).

6. The Essence of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted is that, even accepting all of his alleged facts, Plaintiff has no legal claim. 

Marrero v. Modern Maint. Bldg. Serv., 318 F. Supp. 2d 721, 723 (E.D. Wis. 2004).

7. The Court’s function in ruling on motion to dismiss for failure to state claim is to assess

whether the Complaint alone is legally sufficient to state claim for which relief may be 

granted, and in making determination, a Court may not look to other pleadings or 

documents to resolve factual disputes. Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286, 286 (10th Cir. 

1993).

8. A Court may consider only facts alleged in pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or 

incorporated by reference in pleadings, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. 

Pouliot v. Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 135, 137 (D. Conn. 2004).

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 2 of 22
3

9. A Court must not speculate that unmentioned factual propositions or evidentiary links are 

among facts the Plaintiff intends to prove at trial. ACLU Found. of S.Cal. v. Barr, 952 F.2d 

457, 459 (U.S. App. D.C. 1991).

10. A Court will dismiss cause of action for failure to state claim when it appears beyond doubt 

that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his/her theory of recovery that 

would entitle him or her to relief or when the issue of law is dispositive. Brown v. Unified 

Sch. Dist. No. 500, 338 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20214 (D. Kan. 2004).

11. A dismissal for failure to state claim is a disposition on the merits. Holder v. Nelson, 514 

F.2d 1091, 1091 (9th Cir. 1975).

12. As it pertains to the personal liability of members of a Florida Corporation, Florida’s 

Business Corporation Act (“the Act”) states, in Sec. 607.0831:

a. “A director is not personally liable for monetary damages to the corporation or 

any other person for any statement, vote, decision to take or not to take action, or 

any failure to take any action, as a director, unless: (a) The director breached or 

failed to perform his or her duties as a director; and (b) The director’s breach of, 

or failure to perform, those duties constitutes any of the following: (1) A violation 

of the criminal law ... (2) A circumstance under which the transaction at issue is 

one from which the director derived an improper personal benefit, either directly 

or indirectly ... (4) conscious disregard for the best interest of the corporation, or 

willful or intentional misconduct; or ... (5) recklessness or an act or omission which 

was committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting 

wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.” Fla. Stat. § 

607.0831

13. Under the Act, an individual may not bring an action against corporate directors based on 

Fla. Stat. § 607.0831 because that statute shields directors from personal liability and 

specified circumstances in which that protection may be lost; the statute itself does not 

create any causes of action against corporate directors. Connolly v. Agostino’s Ristorante, 

Inc., 775 So. 2d 387, 388 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2000).

14. In a Complaint for Copyright Infringement against a corporate defendant, Plaintiff must 

allege more than mere negligence by the director under Fla. Stat. § 607.0831(1)(b), to 

survive a director’s motion to dismiss. Buckner v. Campbell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128022 

(S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2010).

15. In order to overcome corporate liability protection, Florida courts require the Plaintiff 

establish three elements to pierce a corporation’s veil. Specifically, piercing the corporate 

veil requires the plaintiff prove: (1) a lack of separateness between the corporation and its 

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 3 of 22
4

shareholder(s); (2) improper conduct in the use of the corporation by the shareholder(s); 

and (3) that the improper conduct was the proximate cause of the alleged loss. See Solomon 

v. Betras Plastics, Inc., 550 So. 2d 1182, 1184-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

16. Piercing the veil of limited liability is an equitable doctrine that is not, by itself, a cause of 

action. See Turner Murphy Co. v. Specialty Constructors, Inc., 659 So. 2d 1242, 1245 (Fla. 

1st DCA 1995). 

LAW AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS 

17. In the present case, Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant Millionaire Mentor copied and 

posted his copyrighted image on Defendant Millionaire Mentor’s website and social media 

account without a license or authorization from Plaintiff. See Exhibit “A.”

18. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Jason Stone is the Founder and Owner of Defendant 

Millionaire Mentor, Inc. 

19. At no point in its Complaint does Plaintiff allege any facts that would establish any personal 

liability of Defendant Stone as an individual director of the corporation. At no point in his 

Complaint does Plaintiff allege that: Defendant Stone breached or failed to perform his 

duties as a director, and his breach constituted: a violation of criminal law; an improper 

personal benefit; a conscious disregard for the best interest of the corporation, or willful or 

intentional misconduct; or recklessness committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose. 

See Exhibit “A.”

20. In addition, Plaintiff fails to allege in his Complaint that there is a lack of separateness 

between the corporation and Defendant Stone, an improper conduct in the use of the 

corporation by the Defendant Stone, and/or that said improper conduct was the proximate 

cause of the alleged loss. See Exhibit “A.”

21.In short, from the face of the Complaint and exhibits attached thereto, Plaintiff entirely 

fails to allege any personal liability against Defendant Stone, and/or any grounds for 

overcoming Defendant Millionaire Mentor’s corporate liability protection. 

22. As a result, it is conclusory beyond doubt that the Plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in 

support of his theory of recovery that would entitle him to relief against Defendant Stone.

23. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be 

granted as a matter of law, and should be dismissed with prejudice.

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 4 of 22
5

 

WHEREFORE, Defendant Jason Stone prays this Honorable Court for: dismissal of the 

Plaintiffs' action against him with prejudice; an order that Plaintiffs' shall take no relief from their 

complaint herein; an award of Defendant's costs and attorneys' fees herein incurred; and any 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 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 5 of 22
EXHIBIT “A”

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 6 of 22
Complaint for Copyright Infringement Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

MATTHEW STALLONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MILLIONAIRE MENTOR, INC.,

and JASON STONE,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff, MATTHEW STALLONE (“Stallone” or “Plaintiff”), brings this complaint in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against MILLIONAIRE

MENTOR, INC. (“Millionaire Mentor”), and JASON STONE (“Stone”) (together “Defendants”),

alleging as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a highly regarded and sought-after real estate photographer and videographer

who specializes in HDR photography, virtual tour and floor plans for houses, and drone videos.

Plaintiff resides at 12958 Keele Street, Unit A, King City, Ontario, L7B1H8 Canada, and is a

citizen of Canada.

2. On information and belief, Defendant Millionaire Mentor is a Domestic Corporation

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

Avenue, Miami, Florida 33175. Millionaire Mentor is a motivator, mentor, teacher, and social

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 7 of 22 Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 1 of 6
Complaint for Copyright Infringement Page 2 of 6

media service, which owns, operates, and is solely responsible for the content on its commercial

website, www.millionairementor.com.

3. On information and belief, Defendant Stone is an individual and the Founder and Principal

of Millionaire Mentor and resides at 10340 SW 187th Street, Miami, Florida 33157, and is a citizen

of the State of Florida.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is a civil action seeking damages for copyright infringement under the copyright laws

of the United States (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.).

5. This Court has jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (copyright).

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and venue in this District is proper

under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district,

Defendants engaged in infringement in this district, Defendants resides in this district, and

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.

7. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida.

8. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and venue in this District is

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

9. On September 25, 2018, Plaintiff captured the photograph, “39 Stafford Rd Porsche -1”

(“Copyrighted Photograph”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff captured Copyrighted

Photograph using great technical skill and careful timing, as well as significant time and energy.

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 8 of 22 Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 2 of 6
Complaint for Copyright Infringement Page 3 of 6

10. On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff posted Copyrighted Photograph to

www.instagram.com/p/BoLLz7in_0U/?utm_source=ig_twitter_share&igshid=fi3idifwsvh4 (Last

visited May 28, 2019). See Exhibit 2.

11. Plaintiff attached the text “Matthew Stallone photography” to Copyrighted Photograph.

See Exhibit 3.

12. Beginning on or about October 14, 2018, Defendants copied and posted Copyrighted

Photograph to the Defendants’ Instagram feed, www.instagram.com/millionaire_mentor (Last

visited April 10, 2020). A true and correct copy of the Copyrighted Photograph from Defendants’

Instagram feed is attached as Exhibit 4.

13. Upon information and belief, Defendants used Copyright Photograph as a full-page

advertisement for Defendants’ commercial business and website.

14. Defendants attached the following text to its unauthorized use of Copyrighted Photograph:

“MILLIONAIRE MENTOR. A LITTLE DAY ADDS UP TO BIG RESULTS” and attached the

Millionaire Mentor logo to its unauthorized use of Copyrighted Photograph. A true and correct

copy of the “Millionaire Mentor” logo attached ot the Copyrighted Photographs is attached as

Exhibit 5.

15. Plaintiff registered Copyrighted Photograph with the United States Copyright Office on

February 11, 2020 (Registration No.: VA 2-196-403).

16. Defendants copied and posted Copyright Photograph without license or permission of

Plaintiff.

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

17. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1-16 above.

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 9 of 22 Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 3 of 6
Complaint for Copyright Infringement Page 4 of 6

18. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, the copyright owner or licensee of exclusive

rights under United States copyright with respect to Copyrighted Photograph, which is the subject

of a valid and complete Certificate of Copyright Registration by the Register of Copyrights.

19. Among the exclusive rights granted to each Plaintiff under the Copyright Act are the

exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the Copyrighted Photograph to the public.

20. Upon information and belief, Stone is the dominant influences in Millionaire Mentor, and

determined and/or directed the policies that led to the infringements complained of herein.

Accordingly, Stone is jointly and severally liable for any direct copyright infringement committed

by Millionaire Mentor. See Broad. Music, Inc. v. It’s Amore Corp., No. 3:08CV570, 2009 WL

1886038 (M.D. Pa. June 30, 2009), citing Sailor Music v. Mai Kai of Concord, Inc., 640 F. Supp.

629, 634 (D.N.H.1984).

21. Upon further information and belief, Stone maintained the right and ability to control the

infringing activities of Millionaire Mentor, and had a direct financial interest in those activities by

virtue of his equity ownership in the companies. Accordingly, Stone is vicariously liable for any

copyright infringement committed by Millionaire Mentor. See, e.g., Broad. Music, Inc. v. Tex

Border Mgmt., 11 F. Supp. 3d 689, 693-94 (N.D. Tex. 2014).

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendants, without the permission or consent of

Plaintiff, copied and used Copyrighted Photograph on Defendants’ commercial website,

www.millionairementor.com. In doing so, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of

reproduction and distribution. Defendants’ actions constitute infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright

and exclusive rights under copyright.

23. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the foregoing act of infringement was willful and

intentional, in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 10 of 22 Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 4 of 6
Complaint for Copyright Infringement Page 5 of 6

24. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright and exclusive rights under

copyright, Plaintiff is entitled to actual or statutory damages, including any profits realized by

Defendants attributable to the infringement, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 for Defendant’s

infringement of Copyrighted Photograph.

COUNT II: REMOVAL AND ALTERATION OF INTEGRITY OF COPYRIGHT

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

25. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1-16 above.

26. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants, without the permission or consent of

Plaintiff, knowingly and with the intent to conceal infringement, intentionally removed the

copyright management information from Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Photograph before displaying

Copyrighted Photograph on Defendants’ public website, www.millionairementor.com. In doing

so, Defendant violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1) and (b)(1).

27. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff is entitled to actual or statutory damages

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c). Plaintiff is further entitled to their attorney’s fees and costs

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(5).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. Declaring that Defendants’ unauthorized conduct violates Plaintiff’s rights under the

Federal Copyright Act;

B. Immediately and permanently enjoining Defendants, its officers, directors, agents,

servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, related companies, successors, assigns, and all

others in active concert or participation with them from copying and republishing Plaintiff’s

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 11 of 22 Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 5 of 6
Complaint for Copyright Infringement Page 6 of 6

Copyrighted Photograph without consent or otherwise infringing Plaintiff’s copyright or other

rights in any manner;

C. Ordering Defendants to account to Plaintiff for all gains, profits, and advantages derived

by Defendants by their infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright or such damages as are proper;

D. Awarding Plaintiff actual and/orstatutory damagesfor Defendants’ copyright infringement

in an amount to be determined at trial;

E. Awarding Plaintiff his costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and disbursements in this action,

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(3), and § 1203(b)(5); and

F. Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as is just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims for which there is a right to jury trial.

Dated: June 22, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________

Joycelyn S. Brown,

Florida Bar No. 0058277

IPS Legal Group, P.A.

1951 NW 7th Ave, Suite 600

Miami, Florida 33136

Tel: 786-539-5098

Email: jbrown@ipslegalgroup.com

__/s/_David Deal_________

David C. Deal

Virginia Bar No. 86005

The Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.

P.O. Box 1042

Crozet, VA 22932

Tel: 434-233-2727

Email: david@daviddeal.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Pro Hac Vice Admission pending

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 12 of 22 Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 13 of 22
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 14 of 22
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 15 of 22
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 16 of 22
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 17 of 22
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 18 of 22
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 19 of 22
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 20 of 22
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 21 of 22
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 22 of 22